[House Hearing, 113 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] OVERSIGHT OF THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 113-98 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 91-169 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015 _______________________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking Chairman Member SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York Emeritus NYDIA M. VELAAZQUEZ, New York PETER T. KING, New York BRAD SHERMAN, California EDWARD R. ROYCE, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia RUBEEN HINOJOSA, Texas SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JOHN CAMPBELL, California DAVID SCOTT, Georgia MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota AL GREEN, Texas KEVIN McCARTHY, California EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin BILL POSEY, Florida KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado Pennsylvania JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia GARY C. PETERS, Michigan BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr., Delaware BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin BILL FOSTER, Illinois ROBERT HURT, Virginia DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan STEVE STIVERS, Ohio PATRICK MURPHY, Florida STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DENNY HECK, Washington DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina ANN WAGNER, Missouri ANDY BARR, Kentucky TOM COTTON, Arkansas KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania LUKE MESSER, Indiana Shannon McGahn, Staff Director James H. Clinger, Chief Counsel Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina, Chairman MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, AL GREEN, Texas, Ranking Member Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota PETER T. KING, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee DENNY HECK, Washington RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan ANN WAGNER, Missouri STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada ANDY BARR, Kentucky KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: September 17, 2014........................................... 1 Appendix: September 17, 2014........................................... 37 WITNESSES Wednesday, September 17, 2014 Clowers, A. Nicole, Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office......... 8 Pinschmidt, Patrick, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Financial Stability Oversight Council, U.S. Department of the Treasury... 7 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Clowers, A. Nicole........................................... 38 Pinschmidt, Patrick.......................................... 57 Additional Material Submitted for the Record Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B.: Letter to FSOC Chairman Jacob Lew, dated July 29, 2014....... 62 Pinschmidt, Patrick: Written responses to questions for the record submitted by Representative Barr........................................ 65 OVERSIGHT OF THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL ---------- Wednesday, September 17, 2014 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Patrick McHenry [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Members present: Representatives McHenry, Fitzpatrick, Bachus, Duffy, Fincher, Hultgren, Barr, Rothfus; Green, Maloney, Delaney, Beatty, Heck, Kildee, and Horsford. Ex officio present: Representative Hensarling. Also present: Representatives Garrett, Neugebauer, and Royce. Chairman McHenry. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will come to order. The title of today's subcommittee hearing is, ``Oversight of the Financial Stability Oversight Council.'' Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. The Chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. Today, we will follow up on a hearing that this subcommittee held in March of last year where we discussed the Financial Stability Oversight Council's (FSOC's) failure to address recommendations from a 2012 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit. Unfortunately, nearly 2 years after its September 2012 report, the GAO still concludes that the FSOC has not made satisfactory progress towards implementing many of its recommendations. The FSOC may well be the least transparent Federal entity in the government. Of the 42 meetings held, no substantive description of discussions or members' perspectives have been provided in the meeting minutes. In fact, two-thirds of the meetings were held in executive session, completely closed off to the public. For comparison's sake, even the Federal Reserve releases fairly detailed transcripts of meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), as well as background material relied on by meeting participants and lengthy minutes that describe in detail the issues considered and the participants' perspectives on those matters. What this means for the companies that are potentially subject to the SIFI designation by the FSOC is that they must submit vast quantities of information demonstrating systemic risk and have no idea whether this information is reviewed, and if so, by whom. Furthermore, it is unclear what role, if any, the Office of Financial Research (OFR) plays in the data review process and how the information is ultimately made available to the FSOC's voting members. Even Congress, which created the FSOC and its unprecedented authority under the Dodd-Frank Act, has been denied access to their process. The dearth of information in the FSOC's minutes makes it impossible for Congress to conduct effective oversight of the FSOC and to determine whether the agency has appropriately implemented the Dodd-Frank Act. For example, detailed minutes from the FSOC's designation of nonbank financial companies for ``heightened prudential supervision,'' would help Congress assess the effectiveness of the FSOC's application of the statutory criteria for designation. Detailed minutes would also help Congress assess other matters including: the nature and quality of members' discussions concerning systemic risk; the relationship between the FSOC and the several staff committees that assist it, including the extent to which the FSOC conducted independent analysis or simply served as a rubber stamp; and how the FSOC incorporated data and analysis provided by the OFR as part of its deliberations. The FSOC has now been in existence for 3 years, yet it is still not clear how the FSOC has performed annual reevaluations of its SIFI designations, as required by the law. Although the FSOC's July 31st meeting minutes of this year do indicate that reevaluations took place for 2 firms designated over a year ago, it is unclear what standards were used to conduct these annual reviews, and it is unclear whether a review has been planned or conducted for the third company. In fact, during a recent hearing this past July, a mere 2 weeks before the FSOC voted on the reevaluations, Chair Yellen of the Federal Reserve testified that she was unaware whether redesignation decisions were on the agenda for the FSOC consideration. This is problematic. Therefore, it is not shocking that the GAO concluded that almost 2 years after its 2012 report, the FSOC has not made satisfactory progress in terms of complying with many of its recommendations, including those intended to ensure that the FSOC has a comprehensive set of systemic risk indicators, whether or not it is coordinating and clarifying rules with the OFR and other regulators, and whether or not it has the ability to adequately assess the effect of SIFI designations on the market and on the designated companies. I look forward to the hearing today and the testimony from our panel of witnesses. And I hope they will address these mounting questions that have developed about the FSOC process and its considerably opaque yet very powerful actions over the last 3 years. With that, I will recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Green of Texas, for 5 minutes. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding this important hearing to discuss the Financial Stability Oversight Council, FSOC. The FSOC represents an important piece of the Dodd-Frank solution to the challenges we faced following the 2008 financial crises. As a result of the crises, 489 banks failed between 2008 and 2013, while only 21 banks failed from 2002 to 2007. An estimated 3.2 million foreclosures were completed from 2009 to 2011, versus about only 1.4 million foreclosures from 2006 to 2008. An estimated $3.4 trillion in real estate wealth was lost since 2008; 26.2 percent in pension value has been lost since 2008. An estimated $7.4 trillion in stock market wealth was lost between July 2008 and March 2009. And on September 29, 2008, when the House initially voted down TARP, the Dow dropped 778 points. An estimated 8.8 million jobs were lost between 2007 and 2009. In 2008, the unemployment rate was 5.8 percent, versus 9.6 percent in 2010. The suicide rate quadrupled between 2008 and 2010. There were about 850,000 bankruptcies in 2007, versus 1.4 million bankruptcies in 2009. Mr. Chairman, while we may disagree as to whether we should amend or end Dodd-Frank, there should be little disagreement regarding the lack of data and oversight of certain sectors of the financial markets, which led to overexposure and overleveraging of many large financial institutions. Some important lessons were learned that we should share with you. One of the lessons learned was that we need greater coordination and better data to fully understand the ways in which our financial markets were changing. Through Dodd-Frank, we created the FSOC, chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury. The FSOC is comprised of 10 voting members, our Federal regulators, and one independent member with insurance expertise, together with five non-voting members, including the Director of the Office of Federal Research, the Director of the Federal Insurance Office, a State insurance commissioner, a State banking supervisor, and a State securities commissioner. Congress empowered the FSOC to oversee the landscape of the financial markets and to designate certain financial institutions as systemically important financial institutions, or SIFIs. Through this designation, these firms could be subjected to heightened standards under the Federal Reserve to ensure the safety of our financial system. Nonbank financial institutions of any size can be designated by the FSOC through a two-thirds vote, and to date only three firms have been so designated. Nonetheless, despite only being a few years removed from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the FSOC and its SIFI designation process is under scrutiny. Because clarity from the FSOC is important, I do not oppose companies asking for additional guidance or feedback regarding the FSOC process. Their contention that certain sectors of the financial markets are fundamentally structured differently than bank holding companies should be considered when determining an SIFI designation. However, we must remember that Dodd-Frank has been a massive undertaking for our Federal regulators. They continue to work tirelessly to implement the law, and adjustments will be needed. To be clear, I have always contended that I support efforts to improve Dodd-Frank, which is why I believe we should entertain questions regarding transparency in the FSOC's decision-making process. However, I do not support efforts that would ultimately undermine the FSOC's ability to monitor systemic risk in our financial system. I thank the witnesses for appearing today. I look forward to their insights. And I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman McHenry. We will now recognize the chairman of our Capital Markets Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Chairman McHenry--or is it Chief Deputy Whip Chairman McHenry--for holding this important hearing. I am not sure I will use all that time. I very much appreciate this hearing on oversight of FSOC, the Financial Stability Oversight Council. Conducting a thorough and robust overview of this Council is one of the most important things that this committee can be doing right now. Why is that? Because FSOC has repeatedly defied bipartisan calls to do what? To cease and desist its nonbank designations. We have asked them to improve the transparency of their operations, and also simply to use more data-driven and thorough analysis, and frankly, to be accountable to Congress. Rarely in all my years have I seen a regulatory body that is so defiant of the demands of bipartisan Congress. More recently, as media outlets have reported, FSOC has designated a new insurance company as a systemically important financial institution (SIFI). Designating more private companies as too-big-to-fail and turning their regulation over to the Federal Reserve and its ever-growing safety net, if you will, is not going to solve the problems of taxpayer exposure to the financial system. Now, I am sure everyone here has heard the old saying, ``When you are in a hole, stop digging.'' Well, sir, I would ask you to do this: When you leave here, please tell Secretary Lew to put the shovel down. This is just not my analysis. Here is a quote from an independent financial analyst over at Guggenheim Securities, Jaret Seiberg. In a note he sent out to his clients, in referring to your most recent designation, he said, ``We believe customers now will prefer to do business with an insurer that the government has said is too-big-to-fail.'' So by your designation, you are driving business that way. In conclusion, the FSOC must stop taking us down this road. It must stop expanding the taxpayer-backed safety net. It must stop distorting competitive forces in various financial markets. And hopefully, in several months, we will have in this body and in the Senate a critical legislative mass to be able to reform this agency and to stop spreading too-big-to-fail. With that, I yield back. Chairman McHenry. We will now recognize the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Maloney, for 3 minutes. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. And I thank the chairman and the ranking member for holding this hearing. The Financial Stability Oversight Council, or FSOC, has a three-part mission: identifying risk to financial stability; promoting market discipline; and finally, responding to emerging threats to financial stability. Dodd-Frank gave the FSOC one primary tool to mitigate systemic risk: the power to designate financial institutions as systemically important financial institutions, or SIFIs. This is an important and necessary power, and without it we would have no protection against another AIG. But because designating companies as SIFIs is so consequential to the companies that are designated, it is imperative that the designation process be as transparent, clear, and robust as possible. In setting up the designation process, the FSOC went through a lengthy public rulemaking that included three separate public comment periods. They should be commended for actively engaging with stakeholders and the general public in creating the designation process, but this doesn't mean that the FSOC designation process is perfect and that no improvements can be made. In fact, now that we have been through the designation process a few times, and three companies have been designated as SIFIs and one has been proposed for designation, I believe that the FSOC should review what has worked and what can be improved. And that is why in July, I sent a letter to Secretary Lew recommending four specific changes that I believe would make the designation process more fair, thorough, and transparent, without undermining the FSOC's ability to identify and mitigate systemic risk. I ask unanimous consent to place this letter in the record. Chairman McHenry. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mrs. Maloney. The four recommendations that I made are that first, the Council should provide notice to companies that they are in stage two and let them know what is happening, particularly if they are requesting this information. Second, the Council should begin its engagement with a company that is under consideration. Once it has advanced to stage two, start working with them, instead of waiting until stage three. Third, when the Council provides a company with notice that it has advanced to stage three, the Council should, to the extent feasible, identify what are the particular issues that they feel merit further review. And fourth, the Council should adopt a policy of automatically granting an oral hearing to the company upon request. These companies need to know, for their own planning and their own internal efforts what exactly is going on. I think these are common-sense proposals that I hope will be accepted by Treasury and FSOC. But also, it is important that we not lose sight of the problems that made FSOC necessary: the fact that no regulator prior to the crisis had responsibility for monitoring risk across the entire financial system, which allowed the huge risks to build up outside of the traditional banking sector. So I look forward to hearing the witnesses, and I thank you very much. Chairman McHenry. We will now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Delaney, for 2 minutes. Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague, Mr. Garrett, made a good observation when he read from the research report, and I think he said that the analyst said that business would be going towards companies that were designated as systemically important. But it seems to me one of two things will happen to a certain percentage of a company's business if it is designated systemically important: either business will go towards it; or business will go away from it. Either way, this designation will affect how the market works and will affect these private enterprises, which is why I believe it is extraordinarily important that the process for designation and the communication and the transparency be done to the highest standard possible. Because in fact, every one of these enterprises that is being considered for designation is already a regulated institution, oftentimes to an extraordinarily high degree. So I am looking forward to hearing in your testimony how you plan on addressing some of the concerns that my colleague from New York has raised, and which I have also addressed with a piece of legislation that I have co-authored with my colleague, Mr. Ross, in terms of making sure that companies who are considered as a potential SIFI have an opportunity--they and their regulators--to discuss in great detail what the strategy is for designation and what other alternatives are available for these companies to avoid a designation, if possible. For example, if a business had an activity that the FSOC considered problematic, are we giving companies an opportunity to divest that activity so that the activity in concern could actually be removed from the institution? That seems to me to be, as an example, a better way to accomplish the objectives of FSOC. So I care a lot about transparency; I care a lot about process; and I care about making sure these companies have a seat at the table, as do their regulators, to have a robust dialogue and to come up with alternatives for SIFI designation. Because SIFI designation will, in fact, affect how these companies participate in their market, how businesses who do business with them, and counterparties who do business with them, think about them, either positively or negatively. Chairman McHenry. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will now recognize our witnesses for today's panel. Our first witness is Mr. Patrick Pinschmidt. He is Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Financial Stability Oversight Council. Mr. Pinschmidt was previously a Policy Advisor to the Congressional Oversight Panel created to review the current state of financial markets and the regulatory system. He also served as vice president of U.S. equity research for both Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch. He has a bachelor's degree from Georgetown University and received an MBA from Columbia Business School. Our second witness is Ms. Nicole Clowers. She is Director of the Financial Markets and Community Investment Team at the United States Government Accountability Office. Ms. Clowers has been with the GAO for over 15 years. She has a bachelor's degree from Virginia Tech and a master's in public administration from the University of Georgia. Thank you both for being here. The witnesses will be recognized for 5 minutes. I know this is not your first rodeo, and so you are aware of the lighting system. You are also aware that this committee has an atrocious sound system, so if you bring the microphone uncomfortably close to your face and then speak clearly, we might be able to hear you. And without objection, the witnesses' written statements will be made a part of the record. Mr. Pinschmidt, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF PATRICK PINSCHMIDT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Mr. Pinschmidt. Thank you. Chairman McHenry, Ranking Member Green, and members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today regarding the Financial Stability Oversight Council. Next month will mark the fourth anniversary of the Council's first meeting. Federal and State financial regulators now meet regularly to coordinate and work together to identify and respond to potential threats to financial stability. The Council has convened over 40 times, and just over the last year has considered issues including market volatility, the debt ceiling impasse, interest rate risk, developments in Europe and emerging economies, housing finance reform, operational incidents in the U.S. equity markets, and cybersecurity. The broad range of these issues illustrates the importance of an organization charged with looking across the financial system to identify, monitor, and respond to risks to financial stability. Congress gave the Council a number of authorities to address risks to financial stability. The Council has shown a willingness to use these authorities and a commitment to rigorous analysis. It has designated three nonbank financial companies for Federal Reserve supervision and enhanced prudential standards. It has designated eight financial market utilities for enhanced risk management standards. It has issued for public comment proposed recommendations regarding money market mutual fund reform. And it has made specific recommendations in its annual reports regarding reforms to address vulnerabilities in the tri-party repo markets and other areas. In its first 4 years, the Council has also worked extensively with the GAO and other oversight bodies, and we respect their role in making recommendations to help the Council fulfill its statutory responsibilities. I want to now highlight some of the ways in which the Council has built an organization framework that supports openness and collaboration throughout its work. Beginning with its very first meeting in October 2010, the Council voluntarily adopted a transparency policy. The Council expanded that policy earlier this year to improve the flow of information to the public. With respect to the nonbank designations process, the Council has established a rigorous and fair process for evaluating nonbank financial companies for potential designation. Although a rulemaking was not required in this context, the Council developed a rule and guidance regarding this authority and provided the public with three separate opportunities to comment on this approach. The Council's careful analysis of individual nonbanks include extensive interactions with the companies under consideration. Together, for the three nonbank financial companies that have been designated, the firms submitted thousands of pages of information to the Council, met with the Council or staff dozens of times, and each company received a detailed written explanation of the Council's analysis before a vote on the final designation was taken. It is important to note that much of the Council's work, particularly with regard to companies under consideration for potential designation, relies on sensitive, company-specific information that would not be shared by firms or regulators without an expectation of confidentiality. The Council has a statutory responsibility to protect the confidentiality of this information, as its disclosure could result in destabilizing market speculation. Within this context, the Council is continually examining how it can monitor emerging threats to the financial system while also opening up more of its work to the public. In this regard, the Council's annual report is an important example of the Council's commitment to sharing information about its work with Congress and the public in a clear and transparent manner. Since its first meeting, the Council has received a number of suggestions regarding its practices, including some from members of this committee. Although it is a relatively young organization, the Council has already demonstrated its commitment to improving the effectiveness of its work and its engagement with the public. Consistent with that history, I expect that the Council will consider potential changes to its nonbank designations process in the coming months and will continue to evolve. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Pinschmidt can be found on page 57 of the appendix] Chairman McHenry. We now recognize Ms. Clowers for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF A. NICOLE CLOWERS, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL MARKETS AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE Ms. Clowers. Chairman McHenry, Ranking Member Green, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for having me here today to discuss our work on FSOC. As you know, FSOC was created to address a regulatory weakness highlighted by the recent financial crisis--namely, a lack of an agency responsible for looking across the system to identify and respond to threats to the financial system. In September 2012, we issued our first audit report of FSOC and made nine recommendations. Since that time, FSOC has taken steps to address some of the recommendations. However, as we reported in 2012, and our findings and recommendations made clear, additional work is needed. Our 2012 recommendations were intended to improve FSOC's risk-monitoring functions, accountability, transparency, and collaboration. Since 2012, as I said, FSOC has taken some steps to address our recommendations. For example, it has worked to improve communication with the public by redesigning its Web site and making more timely notices of upcoming meetings. FSOC has also developed bylaws for its deputies committee, which is an important collaboration improvement. However, more work is needed to fully address our recommendations. With the rest of my time, I would like to highlight some key recommendations where we think additional work is needed. First, we recommended in 2012 that FSOC develop a systematic and comprehensive approach to identify systemic risk in emerging threats. We noted that FSOC's approach might not help identify new risk that member agencies had not already identified. Two years later, FSOC continues to rely on largely the same process. While OFR has made some progress in developing data tools to support FSOC since the 2012 report, we observe that these tools suggest that one tool is still under development and the other is not risk-focused. Second, related to accountability and transparency, we recommended that FSOC keep detailed records of their closed- door meetings. While no specific level of detail is required for FSOC's minutes, the limited documentation of their discussion makes it difficult to assess FSOC's performance. FSOC officials said they have attempted to improve meeting minutes that are provided to the public, but FSOC officials said they do not plan to keep more detailed minutes or have them transcribed because of the confidential information discussed. We continue to believe the lack of detailed minutes limits both transparency and accountability. Also related to accountability, we recommended that FSOC comprehensively evaluate whether the designations of financial companies for enhanced supervision are having the intended impacts. Congress intended that the designations would lead to greater financial stability. These designations will likely have other significant benefits and costs, both for the designated firms as well as the Nation's economy. Given these potential impacts, it is important that retrospective reviews of the designations are undertaken. FSOC has not yet begun preparations for or committed to conducting such reviews. We have previously reported on the importance of advanced planning for these reviews. Finally, to improve collaboration and coordination, we recommended that FSOC clarify its roles and responsibilities among FSOC and its member agencies for systemic risk monitoring, and adopt practices to coordinate rulemaking across member agencies. FSOC officials told us they do not plan to implement these recommendations because the overlapping responsibilities for monitoring systemic risk has not been problematic. They also said FSOC lacks the authority to direct independent agencies. We maintain that action within FSOC's existing authority is needed, as our past work has shown that the lack of clear roles and coordination can lead to duplication, confusion, and regulatory gaps. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, FSOC has taken some steps to address our recommendations, but more work is needed. We believe that fully addressing our recommendations will improve FSOC's systemic risk monitoring functions, allow Congress to hold them accountable for results, and enhance collaboration among FSOC's members. Chairman McHenry, Ranking Member Green, and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Clowers can be found on page 38 of the appendix.] Chairman McHenry. Thank you, Ms. Clowers. And thank you both for your testimony. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. Can you please describe, Mr. Pinschmidt, to what extent the FSOC and OFR have developed comprehensive mechanisms for identifying and monitoring systemic risk? Mr. Pinschmidt. Yes. Thank you. The FSOC operates a very robust committee system to-- Chairman McHenry. I am asking very specifically here. We only have 5 minutes, so if you can just get into the specifics here. Mr. Pinschmidt. Yes. I guess what I would say is it is important to have some context in terms of the committee's structure and-- Chairman McHenry. I am aware of the committee's structure. I am asking, the GAO report is a pretty damning one when it comes to this question of whether or not you have a comprehensive systemic risk monitoring system, and they say you do not. So what is your response to that? Mr. Pinschmidt. I believe Ms. Clowers is referring to the OFR Markets Monitor, which is a publication by the OFR that provides a systematic overview of the marketplace and key trends and developments, and it has been something that is shared on a regular basis at the FSOC Systemic Risk Committee on-- Chairman McHenry. Is that sufficient? Mr. Pinschmidt. No. It is not really meant to be sufficient. It is one input-- Chairman McHenry. What are the other ingredients for sufficiency so you can measure systemic risk? Mr. Pinschmidt. The other ingredients would be the other working groups, the other areas of the different regulatory communities that are focused on key areas of-- Chairman McHenry. So, as a matter of oversight, to make sure that is, in fact, the case, how can I know that, when the GAO in their audit says that you do not have that systemic risk assessment? Mr. Pinschmidt. The systemic risk assessment that Ms. Clowers was referring to is viewed within the FSOC context as a complement to its ongoing work throughout the committee systems and the ad hoc groups that are focusing on specific risks. Chairman McHenry. Okay. Ms. Clowers, to this question, why does the GAO believe that the FSOC and OFR have failed to develop comprehensive and systemic mechanisms for identifying and monitoring systemic risk? Ms. Clowers. They lack such processes. They use the Systemic Risk Committee to help identify risk, but what happens in that committee is each member brings ideas and those ideas bubble up. What we are looking for is a comprehensive, systematic approach or a common set of indicators that would look across the system to identify potential threats, that these indicators would be forward-looking, risk-focused, and less dependent on who shows up to a meeting, rather that it be routine, everyone would know which data they are looking at. Chairman McHenry. Okay. So, Mr. Pinschmidt, I want to bring something up, and I know you are fairly well-versed in it. When you worked at Morgan Stanley, you wrote a piece in June of 2008 about Lehman Brothers. I know you have answered this question before, but the piece is entitled, ``Bruised, Not Broken, and Poised for Profitability,'' talking about Lehman Brothers. And going in just 2 months before Lehman's bankruptcy and failure, you are touting that they are on the road for profitability. I bring this up not to embarrass you. You have obviously written a lot. You have had a very long career. But this highlights how difficult it is to really assess systemic risk, does it not? Mr. Pinschmidt. Yes. Certainly, I made the wrong call on that, and a lot of other people did too. But what I would say is, sort of more importantly, the market misjudged the impact of Lehman's failure in terms of counterparties, other institutions. And it just kind of reminds us today--and I think to Ms. Clowers' point--that we need to make sure that there are appropriate safeguards in place. We need to make sure that there is increased transparency. To the extent that firms are large and outsized, we need to make sure that there are enhanced prudential standards and there are steps taken in terms of resolution authority to-- Chairman McHenry. So to that question-- Mr. Pinschmidt. --the risks from a firm's failure. Chairman McHenry. So to that question of transparency, that is what we are here today talking about. I want to move on. The FSOC recently announced that it is taking ``a more focused analysis of industry-wide products and activities to assess potential risks associated with the asset management industry.'' So does this mean that the FSOC is no longer going to designate asset management companies as SIFIs? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, what that means is--and I think you are referring to the readout from the July 31st Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council directed FSOC staff and member agency staff to undertake an analysis of asset management activities and their products. That decision was--is driven by a recognition that asset managers are different from other companies-- Chairman McHenry. Sure. But this was interpreted, so is BlackRock still at stage two in this process? Mr. Pinschmidt. Companies, unless they are voted on, remain in a stage. Chairman McHenry. So that is called purgatory, right? It is neither heaven nor hell. It may not be so bad. It may not be for any sort of length of time that you can determine. And you just leave people in a suspended state of animation. Is that a fair assessment? Mr. Pinschmidt. The Council operates a three-stage process. Stage one is based on public metrics that each company can assess. The key threshold is $50 billion in assets, and then if you trip one of five other metrics you are in stage two. Unless the composition of the company's metrics changes, that company remains in stage two. Chairman McHenry. Forevermore? Mr. Pinschmidt. Unless there is a vote. Chairman McHenry. Okay. And could there be a vote to put them back in stage one? Mr. Pinschmidt. That would only be appropriate--a vote isn't needed to put them into stage one. They would automatically go back to stage one if the metrics changed and therefore they didn't hit the thresholds to advance to stage two. What I would like to sort of stress on this is that stage one is purely mechanical. There doesn't have to be any analysis by the Council; it is based on publicly available data. If you trip those metrics, you are in stage two, and therefore subject to more evaluation by the Council. Chairman McHenry. I have gone well over my time. We will now go to Mrs. Maloney of New York for 5 minutes. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. I think that there may be a disconnect between the Council's duty to identify and mitigate systemic risks and the tools that they have to work on it. For example, if the Council identifies a particular company that is systemically risky, it has by statute the tools to mitigate that risk by an SIFI designation, which puts them under stronger regulation with the Fed. But if the Council identifies an industry-wide activity which was really part of the prior financial crisis with the credit default swaps and other activities that are systemically risky, the most it can do to mitigate that risk, according to the statute, is to issue a nonbinding recommendation to other regulators. So my question is, is it fair to ask the Council to identify activities based on systemic risk but then not give the Council the authority to do anything about any of these activities except for a recommendation? I would like a comment on that. It seems to me that sometimes it is the activities that are the most risky in a financial situation, not necessarily the institutions, which may be reacting to a financial crisis that was created by the risky activities. To me, I think the risky activities should have more attention, really. So my question is that, and I ask Mr. Pinschmidt. Mr. Pinschmidt. Thank you, Congresswoman. What I would note is that the Council has very strong convening powers bringing regulators together across the financial system, and that in and of itself is very important when looking at activities, because activities don't necessarily impact individual institutions and individual marketplaces; they stretch across the financial system. So in that convening power there are a number of steps that the Council could take based on the nature of the risk, to the extent risk is identified. One of the steps is just asking for more information: working with the primary regulators; working with the industry; asking for more information and getting more detail and more data. A lot of times when risks are identified it is because there is not enough information there, so that is a very logical outgrowth of that process. Other times, to the extent a risk is identified and there is more work that a regulator can do, there are two options for the Council. It can highlight a risk in the annual report or it can issue a Section 120 recommendation to a specific regulator regarding potentially taking some action. So again, and I think in the broader context, though, it starts a process, it focuses regulators, and there are a number of authorities that can come out of that process. Mrs. Maloney. Do you think that the Council should have the authority to issue binding regulations to address serious activities that are based on risk? Mr. Pinschmidt. It is really not for me to answer that question, but I would defer to the Council on that. Mrs. Maloney. Okay. Ms. Clowers, can you comment on whether the FSOC has the tools it needs to carry out its statutory duties? Ms. Clowers. It has the tools necessary and the people necessary in the room to make decisions and carry out its duties. Where we have recommended that we think additional work is needed is work on the development of their systemic risk monitoring functions. There has been some discussion today of the different data tools that are available, including those provided by the OFR. We think those tools could be enhanced by making them more risk-focused and forward-looking. And also, even the OFR Advisory Committee has encouraged OFR to be more aggressive in the development of their tools. Mrs. Maloney. I would like to ask Mr. Pinschmidt, when the Council is analyzing whether a company is systemically important, they don't measure whether the failure of the company would destabilize the system in normal times; they measure whether it would destabilize the system in a period of stress in the financial industry. Can you comment on how that standard has affected the Council's analysis of whether companies are systemically important and what are the benefits or the drawbacks of that system? Mr. Pinschmidt. That guidance was built into the final rule on guidance for the nonbanks designations process, and essentially the rationale behind that was a recognition that rarely do firms fail in a vacuum; there is generally a precipitating event, there is broader market weakness, economic weakness. And so thus, it is appropriate to look at firms in the context of not perfect markets, not terrible markets, but not great markets either. Mrs. Maloney. What are the drawbacks of that system? Mr. Pinschmidt. I'm sorry, I-- Mrs. Maloney. What are the drawbacks of that system, of just designating it in a time of extreme stress--and the benefits? Do you think that is the right approach? Should we do it just for financial stress times or also normal times? Mr. Pinschmidt. I think it is a recognition that when a firm is undergoing stress, there are generally precipitating events and the market is not functioning generally-- Mrs. Maloney. So you support that approach. Thank you. Mr. Fitzpatrick [presiding]. The gentlelady's time has expired. I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes. Good morning, and I appreciate your participation in the hearing. In his opening statement, Chairman McHenry, I guess referring to the GAO report, identified FSOC as perhaps the least transparent agency in all of the Federal Government. And likewise, Mr. Delaney, in his comments, addressed concerns that because of the significant influence that FSOC has in the designation process, how critical it is that the thought process, the reasoning, that it all be laid out and that it be transparent. So my question for you, Mr. Pinschmidt: Is it your position that FSOC cannot be made more transparent than it is today? Mr. Pinschmidt. What I would note is the FSOC really values transparency, and-- Mr. Fitzpatrick. Could it be made more transparent? Mr. Pinschmidt. Yes. I think that has been a continuous arc since the first meeting 4 years ago. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Specifically, what actions are you prepared to take, including further clarification, more detailed meetings, minutes, and-- Mr. Pinschmidt. Yes. I think there have been a number of suggestions, including from this committee, and we have received suggestions from outside stakeholders. And as I noted in my oral remarks, we expect, in terms of at least the nonbanks designations process, the Council will begin to evaluate potential changes there. And what I would note is, look, we are not--the Council shouldn't be frozen in its ways. To the extent that there is good feedback and suggestions out there that make sense, the Council is open to considering those, and I expect that, again, for--in the example of transparency, it is a balance for the Council-- Mr. Fitzpatrick. Sure. Do-- Mr. Pinschmidt. --because the Council--sorry. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Through August of 2014, you have had 42 meetings. Have any of those meetings been transcribed? Have any of those transcriptions, if you have them, been released? Mr. Pinschmidt. The practice of the Council has been to release public minutes following the next meeting, once they are approved. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Where substantive matters are considered? Mr. Pinschmidt. The minutes serve as the record for the meeting. Mr. Fitzpatrick. And how about executive sessions? Are there executive sessions of the Council? Mr. Pinschmidt. Certainly from time to time there--like around Hurricane Sandy there were meetings that were held on short notice to bring regulators together to respond to what was going on. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Pinschmidt, on a slightly different matter, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee on September 8th, Governor Tarullo expressed his, what he called, ``pretty strong presumption'' that traditional or core insurance activities do not pose systemic risk. Former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank expressed the same view earlier this summer before this, his old committee. Do you agree with Governor Tarullo and Chairman Frank that traditional or core insurance activities do not pose systemic risk? Mr. Pinschmidt. I haven't had the opportunity to speak with Governor Tarullo or former Chairman Frank on that. What I would note, in terms of the insurance analysis that has been done by the Council, that has been done at a company-specific level, looking at the designations authority. And the nature of those determinations for the two insurance companies that were identified was based on the size, interconnectedness, and leverage, and other factors of those institutions, not necessarily a reflection on core insurance products or practices that were particularly highlighted. Mr. Fitzpatrick. So the question is, do core insurance activities--do they or do they not pose systemic risk? Mr. Pinschmidt. The nature of the evaluation that was done by the Council on the specific insurance firms related to those firms' general size, structure, interconnectedness with the financial system, and the impact of their potential failure on market functioning. Mr. Fitzpatrick. So your answer is yes? Mr. Pinschmidt. What I am trying to say is the nature of the analysis undertaken by the Council on those companies was based on company-specific factors and what effect the failure of those companies would have on the broader financial system. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Governor Tarullo also noted that AIG and Prudential were designated as systemic not because of their core insurance activities but due to what he called ``nontraditional insurance activities,'' where runnability is more of a concern, and also with respect to things that are not insurance activities of any sort. Do you agree with Governor Tarullo that to justify designating an insurance company as an SIFI that one would have to find that the company engages in activities that are not traditional insurance activities and that do pose systemic risk? Mr. Pinschmidt. I haven't had an opportunity to talk to Governor Tarullo regarding his testimony, but the analysis that was done for the insurance companies was company-specific rather than industry as a whole, and it was based on the size, leverage, and interconnections of those companies and how that makeup could transmit to the rest of the financial system. Mr. Fitzpatrick. I now recognize Mr. Delaney for 5 minutes. Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MetLife is a 146-year-old company that has generally been a pretty well-regarded company, and it is likely that they are going to sue the United States over this designation, in part because they feel like the process was bad. Do you consider that a failure of the process? Mr. Pinschmidt. I cannot comment on any specific companies that have not been designated. What I can say is the Council runs a very thorough and robust process. I did note one example in my testimony. For one of the companies that was ultimately designated, the Council and its member agency staff met with or had phone calls with the company 20 times over a period of a year. There were 200 data submissions totaling 6,000-- Mr. Delaney. Did the members of the Council meet with the senior management team of the company as a group? Mr. Pinschmidt. Prior to a vote on the final designation, the company was offered a hearing before the Council and the company presented to the Council, yes. Mr. Delaney. How much before the designation was that presentation made? Mr. Pinschmidt. That was 60 days before a vote on a final designation. And it is worth noting that prior to that hearing, the company was given a very detailed basis for the proposed designation, roughly 200 pages long outlining the key views of the Council. So it wasn't the company coming in there blind, not knowing where the Council was. They kind of had all the facts in front of them; they could argue different points and present their case. Mr. Delaney. When you talk about the factors that went into this designation, aside from activity-based analysis, which I think your comment to the Chair was that you considered other factors, and you talk about size and leverage--when you think about leverage, do you adjust for the nature of the liabilities? Because insurance companies have very long-dated liabilities. Mr. Pinschmidt. Certainly. This is not a mechanical approach by any stretch. It is very specific; it is very analytical. There is a lot of back-and-forth with the company. There are significant questions from the Council side. There are significant questions from the company side. So to sort of force certain metrics based on where they sit and make a determination would not be the right approach. Mr. Delaney. When you looked at the designation of MetLife, for example, did you factor into your analysis that MetLife, if it were to be designated, or other insurance companies that would be designated, would, in fact, as a result of designation, get out of certain businesses that they are currently in that have counterparty risks associated with them and that those businesses would likely run or go from a large, heavily regulated 150-year-old company into new startup insurance companies that were being organized in fact to take advantage of the fact that certain business activities would have to leave MetLife? Did you factor into your overall systemic risk analysis for the good of the financial system that designation actually forces activities out of large, well-regulated companies into institutions that have lighter regulation, are not as well- capitalized, and don't have as long of a track record? Mr. Pinschmidt. The Council, as part of its ongoing risk monitoring, is, of course, always looking at what are the developments in the financial system, what is the impact on financial market functioning-- Mr. Delaney. But my question is specifically as it relates to a company, did anyone sit there and say, ``Well, if we designate this company, the following businesses will likely leave the company and they will go into new startup, largely unregulated or lightly regulated institutions with limited track records,'' and did that--did risk associated with that transfer of activities from large, safe, big, long-term to new startup, unproven, lightly regulated--did that--the risk associated with that transfer, which I view there being risk, was that factored into the risk cost, if you will, of designation? Mr. Pinschmidt. In terms of the company-specific designation authority, the statute is clear on that front that the Council must consider--must identify risks in terms of kind of the remedy and what happens next, in terms of enhanced prudential standards-- Mr. Delaney. But my question is, did someone sit at the table and say, ``If we designate this company, then the following businesses will likely go into other more lightly regulated institutions or new startup companies''--yes or no, was that considered? Mr. Pinschmidt. That is not part of the statutory factors. The Council is focused on risk identification-- Mr. Delaney. So downstream risk that is created from a designation, right--because if you designate a company and it is really big, and because of your designation it cuts itself in half and it spins off a bunch of businesses and it gets spun off to small, lightly capitalized, lightly regulated businesses--the risks associated with that are not factored into the designation. That is what I am hearing, at least. Mr. Pinschmidt. Certainly, if that were to be the case, it would be something that would be looked at across the broader Council work streams and efforts. But in terms of the actual designation decision, the statute is very clear that the Council has to focus on risk identification and the Federal Reserve Board is responsible for-- Mr. Delaney. It doesn't sound like a very balanced risk approach, at least in my judgment. I yield back. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Bachus, the chairman emeritus of the full Financial Services Committee, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Bachus. Thank you. Welcome, Deputy Secretary. You concluded your oral testimony by saying the Council has received a number of suggestions regarding the process for evaluating nonbank financial companies, and that you expect that the Council will consider any potential changes in the coming months. I applaud that statement. And I wanted to point out to you that Mr. Neugebauer and I, in 2012, asked for a GAO study, and they reported back that Dodd-Frank requires the FSOC to periodically reevaluate its designations of nonbank financial companies. Are you aware of that requirement in Dodd-Frank? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, I believe you are referring to the Council's intent to review at least every 5 years the metrics for stage one, in terms of kind of the initial threshold for companies that would be considered. Mr. Bachus. Also, they actually said that you will conduct a comprehensive assessment to determine whether the designations are having the intended impact. Well, no, they said that you don't have to do that. I'm sorry. But they suggested that it would be a good idea that you conduct an assessment after you have made the designation to see whether that designation is having the intended consequence of improving financial stability of the company and any risks that they might have. Congressman Ross and Congressman Delaney, who was just asking questions, have introduced a bill that I am cosponsoring which calls for an assessment of intended impact, which has been suggested by the GAO. Of course, AIG, G.E, and Prudential already have those designations made, with perhaps more on the way. Wouldn't you agree that it may be very helpful and important to know whether the designations are having the intended consequences, or whether maybe they are even having some negative consequences? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, certainly we share, I think, your goal on that. The Council, across all different markets, and particularly with some of the largest institutions, is constantly monitoring as to how things are playing out. Specifically for designated entities, I would note that there is an annual review process of each designation that takes place, and that would--clearly we are not that far away from the initial designations, but you could imagine scenarios going forward as company businesses change, risk profiles change, market functioning change-- Mr. Bachus. Do you make those public? Do you mean that every year you will review the designations, and part of that is whether they are having positive or negative implications-- Mr. Pinschmidt. The annual review is consistent with the Council's statutory authority here focused more on the risk identification, and that would logically encompass what has happened to the profile of the firm, how are they engaging with other market players, are there any material changes in their business model and their riskiness. Mr. Bachus. Right. But do you understand what I am saying? Wouldn't it be a good idea once the designation is made maybe on that annual basis to also say, ``Okay, after we made this designation, this is what has happened, these are some positives, these may be some negatives,'' where you could adjust, or at least reconsider whether or not the designation was even helpful? Mr. Pinschmidt. Certainly in terms of how the designation impacts market functioning and these specific firms, that is considered on an annual basis. Mr. Bachus. Okay. Mr. Pinschmidt. I think to the general questions of market functioning, that encompasses ongoing work at the Council-- Mr. Bachus. I would just say maybe take a look at that legislation and give me your thoughts on it, and Mr. Neugebauer, and maybe Mr. Ross, and Mr. Delaney. It is a bipartisan thing. Let me go quickly to AIG. Mr. Fitzpatrick was talking about the runnability, and we know that was a credit default swap thing where they wrote $430 billion, $440 billion worth of credit default swaps; they didn't buy any. A lot of people bought and sold. So that didn't impair their insurance operations until their credit rating changed. They had a tremendous credit rating problem, and that then did impact their insurance. And I can understand that designation if you have somebody doing something over here which may be dangerous, cause credit rating problems, and then impact their insurance market. I am not sure how that would go with a Prudential or a MetLife, and I just point that out to you. AIG really wasn't an insurance problem; it was a gambling problem. And it was being on one side of the market with $440 billion worth of debt and no money to back it up if it failed. I don't see that with G.E., Prudential, or MetLife. If you would like to respond? Mr. Pinschmidt. What I would note is that each designation is company-specific. There is a core group of--there are 10 statutory considerations in a 6-category framework that comes into play, but the factors that are looked at at each company are very company-specific. And, generally speaking, it is a combination of issues. It is never one thing, or it hasn't been thus far one thing. So I would just note that, again, it is a company-specific analysis and it would be hard for me to kind of generalize. Mr. Bachus. Thank you. Mr. Fitzpatrick. And the gentleman's time has expired. Thank you. Mrs. Beatty is recognized for 5 minutes. Mrs. Beatty. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Green. And thank you to our witnesses today. We have talked a lot about being designated this morning as an SIFI, so let me ask you these two questions: Last night, a couple of my staff were singing the words to ``Hotel California,'' and one of them said, ``Is this a Hotel California scenario, where once designated a company, will you remain an SIFI forever?'' If so, why? And if not, can you describe to me the process of review, including the frequency and high-level considerations in this review? Mr. Pinschmidt. Thank you for that question. Maybe if I could step back here and then sort of briefly outline the process of review of companies for designation. It is a three-stage process. Stage one is purely mechanical, based on metrics and thresholds. To the extent a company triggers those metrics, it automatically goes to stage two. And stage two is viewed as solely very preliminary. It will be--Council member agencies will pull the 10-Q if it is a public company, understand the company, do some initial analysis, and understand to the extent that there are potential risks here what might they be or what areas would there be opportunities for further investigation and understanding. To the extent that there is sufficient rationale to move a company to stage three, there is a vote by the Council on that action. And once a company is moved to stage three, that is when the real work and engagement begins with the companies under consideration. The companies are notified at the beginning of that process. As part of that notification there is a detailed information request, numbering up to 10 pages long, with potentially 100 to 150 different questions. And that begins a very long, robust back-and-forth between the Council and the company on just drilling down on the business, understanding the risks. There is a lot of opportunity for the company throughout that process to engage with the Council, to ask questions. And certainly based on the information that the Council is requesting of the company and the nature of the review, the company will get a sense for what the Council is interested in focusing on. So then closing out stage three, there is a vote on a proposed determination. If there is a proposed determination, then at that stage the Council delivers to the company a very lengthy basis outlining the reason why the Council is concerned or the factors that the Council is highlighting in its analysis. And that is very important because it provides the company the opportunity to sort of understand where the Council is, to level set, what are the key issues, what are the concerns. To the extent that they feel the Council is looking at the wrong thing or is misguided, they can address that. There is an opportunity for an oral hearing before the principals of the Council. The one company that chose to accept that offer came in, presented its case, again had a robust back-and-forth. All the principals of the Council were there and the Council took that information, incorporated it into its thoughts, and then, only then, was there a final vote. So, it is a very lengthy process from that standpoint. Mrs. Beatty. Okay. Mr. Pinschmidt. And then in terms of your initial question on sort of, once you are designated, what happens next, there is judicial review of a designations decision, and then annually the Council does evaluate the decision. So to the extent that the company's risk profile, footprint, and market dynamics change, and they rise to a certain level of materiality, then that would certainly come into play. Mrs. Beatty. Okay. I have a second part, and the clock is running out. I have several insurance companies in my 3rd Congressional District of Ohio. If one of my local State domicile's insurers were designated, can you briefly explain to me what the process would be of determining issues of regulatory jurisdiction between the Ohio Department of Insurance and the Federal Reserve? Mr. Pinschmidt. Yes. The role of the Council is on risk identification. Once a company is designated, they are subject to consolidated supervision by the Federal Reserve. That supervision, as I understand it, will be mainly focused at the holding company level and understanding the profile of the firm; it will not necessarily encompass some of the insurance activities and individual insurance subs. Mrs. Beatty. And lastly, will the Federal Insurance Office be involved in providing the guidance to the Fed? Because under Dodd-Frank Section 120, FSOC has recommendation authority. And we are out of time. Mr. Fitzpatrick. The gentlelady's time has expired. Mr. Hultgren is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First question to Mr. Pinschmidt: I am told that during a Democrat staff briefing last week you told their staff that the FSOC principals would not meet with the entities that are under consideration for SIFI designation until an actual stage three designation was recommended. In practice, this means that companies will not have an opportunity to bring their case to the voting members until the eve of the designation, and after the decision is essentially made. The Wall Street Journal reports that the FSOC has followed this informal policy with the two asset managers that are reported to be under consideration for SIFI designation. These groups have not been able to meet with the FSOC principals or even get confirmation from anyone at the FSOC that they are even under consideration. How is it not contrary to basic standards of administrative procedure and due process for policymakers to draw what amounts to policymaking conclusions prior to the complete consideration of relevant facts and public input? Mr. Pinschmidt. In terms of the interactions with companies during the designations process, in stage three, which I believe you are referring to, there is significant interaction between the Council member agencies and the companies that extends for a very lengthy period of time. There are significant meetings; there are conference calls; there is information flow in both directions. And then after a proposed determination, the company has the opportunity to request an oral hearing, and the Council has noted that it expects to grant all requests for oral hearings. But more importantly, as part of that oral hearing, the company does receive a very detailed basis--sometimes 200 pages long-- outlining the Council's key concerns about the company and providing the company an opportunity to respond. Mr. Hultgren. Your policy, to me, appears to be in direct violation of due process. It feels like the decision has already been made. There may be hearings after that point, but for them not to hear sooner than the designation seems like a direct violation of administrative procedure. Let me move on. Is FSOC aware that the New York Superintendent of Financial Services, which is MetLife's chief regulator, wrote Treasury Secretary Lew on July 30, 2014, to encourage FSOC to reconsider a formal SIFI designation for MetLife? Mr. Lawsky argued against an SIFI designation because: one, MetLife does not engage in noninsurance activities that create an appreciable systemic risk; two, in the event that MetLife or one or more of its insurance subsidiaries were to fail, DFS and other regulators would be able to ensure an orderly resolution; and three, MetLife is already closely and carefully regulated by DFS and other regulators. Is it not concerning that MetLife's chief State regulator, who is no doubt intimately familiar with the company's business portfolio and any relevant risks, is so adamant against an SIFI designation? Will you commit to factoring his concerns into any final designation decision of the company? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, unfortunately, I can't comment on letters relating to actions that haven't necessarily been taken by the Council. What I can note is that as part of the work of the Council on the designations authority, there is broad consultation not just within the Council and the members of the Council, but also at the State level. Mr. Hultgren. Mr. Pinschmidt, has FSOC conducted any analysis to determine how applying risk-based capital standards to insurers will affect the amount of coverage that insurers can offer? Could this ever cause the cost of insurance to rise to a prohibitive level? May there come a time when it is impossible to obtain certain kinds of insurance coverage because insurance companies that have been subjected to bank- like capital standards simply won't be able to afford to offer it? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, on that front, the Council is focused on risk identification. The enhanced prudential standards for insurance companies or designated entities will be developed by the Federal Reserve Board. My understanding is that they will make efforts to tailor them to the specific characteristics of the insurance industry, but as part of that process, I would expect there would be some consultation with the Council. Mr. Hultgren. I hope there would also be a consideration of the risk to consumers of losing options--insurance options-- that could be there because of your activity driving up the significant cost to insurance companies. Certainly, that would be a more significant risk to the marketplace. Let me finish up with one last question. Should FSOC show greater deference to an industry's primary regulators in making SIFI designation decisions? Mr. Pinschmidt. Certainly the Council looks to regulators and its members with industry expertise to hear that expertise as part of the discussion. The nature of individual company designations, however, encompasses broader market dynamics. The companies that are considered do not necessarily solely impact the companies within their industry. They can impact market functioning across asset classes, across industries. Therefore, it is also appropriate to hear the viewpoints of the broader Council members. Mr. Fitzpatrick. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Hultgren. My time has expired. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Heck is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Fitzpatrick--Mr. Chairman. Has a nice ring to it, sir. Ms. Clowers, I have this bias that we are always fighting the last war with the last approach. It is like we are driving with our eyes transfixed in the rearview mirror. That is why I was so intrigued by part of the language in your report, if I may quote briefly, ``Second, in 2012 we recommended that FSOC develop more systematic, forward-looking approaches that would help in separating emerging threats to financial stability from more current risk and prioritizing them in its annual report. Since then, FSOC made some progress in addressing this recommendation but could do more.'' Would you give a specific and concrete example of how they could do more in this regard? Ms. Clowers. Certainly. In looking at the most recent annual reports, it does look like they have become more focused in terms of identifying current and emerging threats. But still, they continue to report them together and they are not prioritizing those threats. And in talking to FSOC officials, they don't plan to prioritize the threats because they realize that could direct people's attention to certain areas. But that is exactly what we think should happen. There is not infinite, limitless resources, both among the regulators and the companies, and providing more specifics in terms of the priorities of the threats would be helpful in directing scarce resources. Mr. Heck. So you think they should separate current from emerging and prioritize them? Ms. Clowers. Correct. Mr. Heck. When it relates to emerging threats, again, be specific and concrete, how would they go about that analysis and evaluation? Give me an example of the kind of thing that might manifest itself in that regard, if you would, please. Ms. Clowers. Certainly. Start with what we have seen in the past is, for example, the debt of the government is listed as an emerging threat, when it was--I think it was listed in 2012 when most anyone who was reading the papers could realize that was a current threat. There are also threats that would come and go off the list without any explanation of why. For example, modeling risk of different companies--it had appeared one year, wasn't there the next year, so you don't know why. To go to your question about how they could do a better job, it is using the tools that are under development, particularly the financial stability monitor that is a promising tool to develop a common set of indicators that would look across the system. But again, it must be forward-looking. To date, those--the metrics aren't forward-looking and goes to your point. It is looking at sort of what we know today and not what we know could happen in the future. Mr. Heck. Right. Thank you. Mr. Pinschmidt, why don't you keep transcripts? Mr. Pinschmidt. The meeting minutes that are produced by the Council generally serve as the official record of the-- Mr. Heck. They are not transcripts. Why don't you keep transcripts? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, the challenge for the Council is, there is a clear recognition that transparency is important, and we have taken a number of steps over the years to improve our transparency-- Mr. Heck. Mr. Pinschmidt, why don't you keep transcripts? Mr. Pinschmidt. As I was trying to note, the obligation to transparency has to be balanced with an obligation to protect confidential, supervisory information. The nature of the Council meetings involves generally very highly sensitive, confidential company information, broader industry information-- Mr. Heck. So does the FOMC. They keep transcripts but they retain them for a period of time. Why don't you keep transcripts? Mr. Pinschmidt. The practice has been to have the official minutes serve as the record for the Council-- Mr. Heck. Why don't you keep transcripts? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, the practice has been to have the minutes serve as the official record for Council meetings. Mr. Heck. So what I am hearing you say is you choose not to keep transcripts. Mr. Pinschmidt. The official minutes have served in that capacity. Mr. Heck. No, they do not. Official minutes are not transcripts. Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, I recognize your concerns on this, but the challenge for the Council is, the Council is charged with looking across markets, looking across institutions, discussing systemic risk. Those conversations, by their very nature, are very sensitive and confidential and-- Mr. Heck. So do you believe they are--you literally believe they are even more sensitive than what the FOMC discusses? Mr. Pinschmidt. I really can't comment on the-- Mr. Heck. Well, they are not. And you should keep transcripts. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Fitzpatrick. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Rothfus, for 5 minutes. Mr. Rothfus. Maybe if we can continue with that line that my colleague was asking about on transcripts, I mean, transcripts can be kept confidential, can't they? Mr. Pinschmidt. I am not really sure about that. I really have no basis to respond there. Mr. Rothfus. When FSOC proposes to designate a company as an SIFI and there are meetings being held at FSOC to discuss that, there is going to be an exchange of ideas and comments back and forth, I would assume, yes? Mr. Pinschmidt. Yes. So, Congressman, certainly in terms of individual proceedings regarding individual companies, the Council makes every effort, particularly in stage three, to communicate with the company, have a two-way conversation, make sure that the-- Mr. Rothfus. Is the company there, though, when you are discussing whether or not to designate it as an SIFI, internally? Mr. Pinschmidt. After a proposed determination the company has the opportunity to present to the entire Council-- Mr. Rothfus. But are they there when you are making the determination and the conversations are going back and forth among the committee members? Mr. Pinschmidt. Certainly the substance of the many company meetings with the Council member agencies and, in fact, presentations-- Mr. Rothfus. I am talking about when the determination is being made among FSOC members. And that is where we are wondering about what the conversations are. And that is why we think, personally, that it is important to have a transcript, so that after the designation is made and the company wants to come in and find out what was going on, they can look at the transcript. Wouldn't that be fair? Mr. Pinschmidt. In terms of the record for the company, the Council provides a 200-page document to the company before a designation has been made. Mr. Rothfus. But the company is not going to have access to the internal deliberations of the committee if they can't be looking at transcripts of what was going on. Mr. Pinschmidt. But the company will have access to the key concerns and factors cited in the Council's proposed determination and has an opportunity to respond to that. Mr. Rothfus. Ms. Clowers, GAO made many recommendations to FSOC in its 2012 report that would assist in shedding some light on the way FSOC makes its decisions. In your written testimony you get into some of this, but could you tell us how many have been implemented to date? Ms. Clowers. We have seen progress on a few of the recommendations dealing with, for example, the communications with the public, redesigning their Web site. They have also made more information or more timely notices of their meetings with the public. We also saw steps in terms of trying to enhance collaboration among their committees by developing bylaws for their Deputies Committee, which we think is an important step. But as I said in my oral statement, we believe additional work is needed on a number of the issues you are highlighting, from transparency and accountability issues. Mr. Rothfus. So specifically, what recommendations haven't been implemented? Ms. Clowers. To date, we have not closed any of the recommendations. We continue discussions with the Council on all of them. For example, on the issue of the transparency that you have been discussing in your comments, we continue to look for additional steps by the Council to enhance the transparency of their decision-making. For example, with the minutes, if they are transcribed, that would provide a record not only for transparency but accountability, as you are suggesting, for future decision-makers to go back and to have a better understanding of the deliberations. Mr. Rothfus. One of the recommendations that you made was for FSOC to more fully incorporate key practices for successful collaboration. I think that would mean that FSOC should engage with regulators, industry, and academics. Has FSOC done this, from your perspective? Ms. Clowers. They have taken some steps to enhance collaboration. I know they have had different industry in for meetings, from asset managers to others. We continue to look for additional steps to be taken. Part of that recommendation was for FSOC to play a greater role in coordinating rulemaking among member agencies. We think, given FSOC's position of bringing together all the member agencies, they have an opportunity to create a forum for that type of discussion. Mr. Rothfus. Mr. Pinschmidt, is FSOC in the process of implementing any of the outstanding recommendations? Mr. Pinschmidt. Yes. What I would say is, we certainly value the work of the GAO. They bring a very important perspective to our work and-- Mr. Rothfus. Which of the outstanding recommendations are you in the process of implementing? Mr. Pinschmidt. I think we are continuing to talk to them about all of them. And we have taken some steps on a number of their recommendations. Mr. Rothfus. Can you tell me one of them that you are currently implementing? Mr. Pinschmidt. I would point to, back in May the Council revised its transparency policy. That was a result of a months- long review based largely on the GAO input. And as a result of that review, what we do now is we post meeting agendas one week in advance, and on the day of an actual meeting we provide a readout detailing what was discussed-- Mr. Duffy [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Horsford, for 5 minutes. Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Green. I want to thank both of the witnesses for being here today, and I really associate myself with the comments of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about the need for review of some of the methodology as well as greater transparency and improvement in that area. I do want to shift my question, though, to an area that has not been discussed yet this morning, which is one of the fundamental issues that led to the economic collapse in 2008, and that was the housing crisis. I am from Nevada and our housing market has still not recovered; we have the most unstable housing market in the country, with about a third of our homes at every income bracket upside down in value, some of them as high as 50 percent or more. It is my understanding that the GAO report, in its most recent report, noted that the FSOC should develop a systematic approach to identify potential threats to the financial stability. So, Mr. Pinschmidt, as you continue to look at threats to the market's financial stability, can you assure us that the health of the housing market will not be ignored? And what strategies is the FSOC pursuing in that respect? Mr. Pinschmidt. Certainly. The housing market has been something that has been highlighted 4 years running in the Council's annual report, and there is clearly more work to be done there in terms of the actual recovery, but also in sort of building out the structural mechanisms in the housing market following the collapse in 2008 and 2009. In terms of the annual report, it is something that recognizes when there is a risk that is outstanding and needs to be addressed, and it serves as a good barometer for what the Council is focusing on. So to the extent that this has been highlighted as a recommendation 4 years running now clearly indicates that this is a priority and ongoing work. Mr. Horsford. And so, what is being done? What discussions, what review? You said that one of the 40 meetings that you had was on the housing finance reform. What areas have you pursued and what recommendations are coming from that analysis? Mr. Pinschmidt. There are two sides to, generally, the Council's engagement on this issue. Clearly, there are a number of staff working groups and regulators with specific equities in this. There is the structural issue, in terms of housing finance reform, and then there is the broader issue, which I think you were alluding to, in terms of the very slow recovery and the impact on consumer spending, the impact on the economy, and broader issues. So, it is a two-front process. Mr. Horsford. Ms. Clowers, what would you suggest, from the GAO perspective, on this issue of the housing crisis as an emerging issue that is still very much a priority, or should be, for the FSOC to be working on? Ms. Clowers. I think it goes to our recommendations about the need to develop a systematic and comprehensive approach to identifying both current and emerging threats, that developing a common set of indicators across the system would allow regulators to determine where there might be threats emerging. And I would encourage FSOC to continue to work with OFR to develop those tools so they are risk-focused and forward- looking. Mr. Horsford. Thank you. I would like to also ask about an issue that I have heard from one of our major industries in Nevada, which of course is gaming, and the fact that there is some concern that as a nonbank industry that does issue credit in the course of their business, that this is an area where FSOC may be pursuing. Can you give me some indication of what FSOC is thinking from the perspective of a major industry like gaming? Mr. Pinschmidt. I can't really comment specifically, but what I can note is the only nonbanks that are eligible for designation--and obviously there are other metrics and thresholds, but there has to be initial determination that 85 percent of revenue or gross assets are in the business of finance or financially related. So I am not sure if that applies to the particular example that you noted, but I would throw that out there. Mr. Horsford. Okay. From a transparency standpoint-- Mr. Duffy. The gentleman's time-- Mr. Horsford. --it would be helpful to get that information out, because there are concerns. Mr. Duffy. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, for 5 minutes. Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pinschmidt, moral hazard is a common justification for regulation, but it can also be exacerbated by government intervention. A criticism of the SIFI designation process is that being officially identified as too-big-to-fail can actually increase the moral hazard by incentivizing increasingly risky investments since taxpayers, and not shareholders or creditors, are likely to bear the costs. Is it possible that an SIFI designation or a designation for enhanced prudential supervision would actually exacerbate moral hazard for an investment fund, for example, rather than reduce that risk? Mr. Pinschmidt. The nonbank designations authority is designed to actually recognize where companies are large, interconnected, and where their material financial distress could pose a risk to financial stability. It is not designed to prevent material financial distress. What happens after a designation is the Federal Reserve Board issues enhanced prudential standards, and those are designed to basically put some safeguards in there. To the extent that the company was to get into trouble, they would have more capital. But also, there are other efforts that come into play, too. If failure is inevitable, then there is a resolution authority and living wills, and those are designed to manage that failure in a more effective way by limiting the collateral consequences-- Mr. Barr. But what about this idea that designation as an SIFI actually would have the potential to increase risk because you are giving that institution a special designation that provides a layer of protection from the taxpayer and not from shareholders or creditors? Mr. Pinschmidt. The tools that come into play after designation are designed to basically make it so that a company can fail without threatening financial stability. Mr. Barr. Let me just shift gears here. Putting aside kind of exotic insurance products like credit default swaps, for traditional insurance activities like life insurance, how would traditional insurance activities pose a systemic risk to the financial system? Mr. Pinschmidt. The Council, in its evaluation of certain insurance companies under Section 113, that has been a company- specific exercise, looking at the nature of those companies, the nature of their interaction, the leverage, the balance sheet exposure, understanding the impact of those specific companies if they were to get into trouble and fail and what would that impact be on the broader financial system. It didn't necessarily take into account specific activities; it was more company-focused. Mr. Barr. Well, okay. If it is company-focused and you have a hypothetical company that, again, does not engage in exotic insurance products like a credit default swap, like an AIG, but it is just a traditional life insurance company, would FSOC in any circumstance view that as a systemically risky company? Mr. Pinschmidt. It is all situational-dependent, as you can imagine. I think the key threshold for an FSOC designation is if that company's failure--it is--designation doesn't sort of contemplate, ``Is the company likely to fail? Is there something going wrong?'' It doesn't take any of that into account. It is, ``What happens if a company is failing? What would be the impact on the broader market system?'' And certainly activities can come into play on that, but generally speaking, for the companies that have been evaluated thus far, it has been on the company-specific factors. Mr. Barr. Final question--I want to talk about the Form PF, which has been described to me as a very onerous form. It is a form that I am told asset managers must provide to the SEC, the CFTC, and FSOC for systemic risk assessments. And the data that is required in filling out these forms and submitting these forms is apparently very voluminous and there are no clear procedures for how these forms are used by the relevant agencies. So the question is, who is reviewing these forms? Are they materially beneficial to the regulators and to FSOC in terms of evaluating systemic risk? Because there is apparently tremendous cost associated with assembling and reporting the data associated with these so-called Form PFs. What is the benefit and what is happening with that submitted paperwork? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, in terms of the Form PF, those are submitted by the--generally the hedge fund industry to the SEC. Mr. Duffy. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett, for 5 minutes. Mr. Garrett. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions. In Ms. Clowers testimony she states, ``Even if FSOC determines that some information should not be made public, its current practices do not provide detailed records even for policymakers, including members of FSOC, to assess decisions.'' Not only do I find that appalling, but obviously from a bipartisan perspective, members from both sides of the aisle find it appalling that more information does not come out and the transcripts do not come out. So, first question: Who made the determination that detailed information and the transcripts would not be kept? Who was the person who made that determination? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, the practice of the Council has been-- Mr. Garrett. I know the practices. Someone had to make the decision. Did you make the decision to do that--to keep it secret? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, I think it is a reflection of the nature of the-- Mr. Garrett. Did they have a vote on it at some point in time? Mr. Pinschmidt. If there was a vote, that would have been disclosed. Mr. Garrett. Okay. So there was never any vote, it just-- you never did it. You have heard from both sides of the aisle that we believe that information should be heard. Did you hear that from both sides, from Democrats and Republicans just now? Yes. That is a yes. Will you go back and now look in to see how this information can be kept confidential in the manner that you think it needs to be kept confidential but still provide the transcripts? Will you make that commitment to us today? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, what I will say as part of my remarks, in terms of my oral statement, was that the Council is a young organization-- Mr. Garrett. Will you go back and make that recommendation to do so? Mr. Pinschmidt. We recognize that there are areas that we-- Mr. Garrett. Will you make that recommendation--I just need a yes or no. Mr. Pinschmidt. I can go back and get you more information if that would be helpful. Mr. Garrett. So you are going to keep it secret until some future date. You also talked, as far as other secret information that you continue to keep is with regard to the annual review. You told us what the annual review is and you said you have already reviewed some of these companies and you actually did it with-- for G.E. and Prudential I believe, right? That is a yes? Mr. Pinschmidt. That is correct. Mr. Garrett. That is right. For their annual review, I think, as far as I can tell, you simply sent out a notice to these companies saying that, ``You are still an SIFI.'' Is that basically correct? Mr. Pinschmidt. After the review, that is correct, yes. Mr. Garrett. After the review. Was the review the exact same process that you had for the initial review? In other words, did you go through the entire three-stage process, allow the executives to come back in and sit down and go through all that information again? Mr. Pinschmidt. The annual review was based--again, we are sort of in a unique situation here because it was just under 12 months after the-- Mr. Garrett. Okay. Mr. Pinschmidt. --initial designation-- Mr. Garrett. Right. Mr. Pinschmidt. --but the annual review-- Mr. Garrett. That is annual, 12 months. Mr. Pinschmidt. Yes. So the annual review took into account the key factors that weighed on the decision to designate. Mr. Garrett. So they don't get a chance to come back on each annual review to say, ``Well, this is our interpretation of this, and this is our interpretation of that?'' Mr. Pinschmidt. Each company is provided--before the annual review commences they are notified and they are offered the opportunity to submit information and-- Mr. Garrett. Submit information, but it is not the exact same process as the first time around, to come in with the staff and what have you and sit down and go through it, just as you said for the first time? Mr. Pinschmidt. At this stage, it is a different spot. Mr. Garrett. Will you recommend that it be changed back so that the annual review is commensurate with the first review? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, certainly the spirit of your remarks and the suggestion about ways to improve, I think the Council is taking a lot of that in, and to the extent that there are ways to improve certain processes, including annual-- Mr. Garrett. The Council is taking a lot into review. Ms. Clowers and others have made recommendations, but it doesn't seem that--you may hear them, but you may not implement them, is our concern. When you make this analysis for these companies and others and you are looking at across the horizon, as far as systemic risk, one of the items we heard from another panel is the ad hoc nature of intervention by the Fed, under Section 13-3 in the last case, that led to uncertainty in the marketplace. Is that something you look at too, as far as you look across the horizon as far as systemic risk potentialities--the ad hoc nature of the implementation of 13-3 by the Fed? Mr. Pinschmidt. So you are referring to the use of 13-3 during the crisis? Mr. Garrett. That is what they did in the past, and they saw that that ad hoc nature some economists said led to the uncertainty in the marketplace and exasperated things. So now going forward, understanding that the Fed still has those powers, do--in a changed manner under Dodd-Frank, of course--do you look at that as being a potentiality for a systemic risk going forward? Mr. Pinschmidt. There is certainly a number of factors that are considered as part of the designation process, and-- Mr. Garrett. I am not talking about the designation process, per se. I am looking into seeing what the Fed's powers are and how that may cause a systemic risk. Mr. Pinschmidt. That is not something I am directly familiar with, no. Mr. Garrett. You are not just looking at companies. Your own analysis shows that you are looking at monetary policy and other governmental policies and spending and what have you. You look at all those things, don't you? Mr. Pinschmidt. Yes, to the extent certain issues impact the financial functioning and-- Mr. Garrett. So is 13-3 one that you look at? Mr. Duffy. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Garrett. Could he just answer-- Mr. Duffy. The gentleman may answer the question. Mr. Pinschmidt. I can certainly get back to you on that one. Mr. Garrett. Thank you. Mr. Duffy. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the witnesses for appearing. I would also like to thank the staff for the outstanding job that they have done in preparing us for this hearing. Much has been said about insurance companies--about them being regulated, about them having oversight. And to some extent, I think these are some statements that merit a lot of credibility. But we also have to remember that AIG was an insurance company. AIG was a regulated insurance company. AIG was also engaged in capital markets, credit default swaps, derivatives. FSOC exists in great part because of an insurance company, AIG, that was ostensibly holding the world together. It is unbelievable what the length and breadth of AIG's involvement in capital markets was. And I thank God we have an FSOC that can look across the entire spectrum and spot the AIGs of the world before they become a systemic risk and have an enormous impact on our economy. This process that FSOC has is something that Congress accorded it, for the most part, in that if a company is displeased with the decision, that company has the right to appeal. So it doesn't have to live with what FSOC concludes; it can appeal. A part of that process means that you go back to FSOC itself, but that is not unusual. In court when you file a motion for a new trial, the judge who heard your case is the judge who determines whether you should get a new trial. If you appeal beyond that, you can go to a district court, Federal district court. We trust the court system in this country. Appeal is a process that every person has if you are sued or if you file suit and you don't like the decision. And it is interesting to note that when people lose, people appeal. They don't always win when they appeal, but they can appeal. And corporations are people, my friends. Corporations do what people do. When they lose, they appeal. This doesn't mean that FSOC hasn't done its job because a corporation is disenchanted with the process or disenchanted with an appeal. That is what happens. That is the American way. Let's talk for just a moment about who really is impacted by what we are doing today, because to listen to what is being said, you would think that this is a big dispute between mega corporations and the government. But this is really about people. It is about the people who had their homes foreclosed on-- 3.2 million of them when we had the crisis. And by the way, minorities were disproportionately impacted. Seventy percent of African-Americans were likely more impacted with foreclosures when this took place. $3.7 trillion in real estate wealth lost. That hurt schools. That was an impact on the tax base. This is what we are trying to protect with Dodd-Frank and FSOC--people, not mega corporations, not the AIGs of the world. We are trying to look into them and make sure they don't do what was done again. 26.2 percent in pension value lost. $7.4 trillion in stock market wealth lost. That is about $66,200 per household. These are real people who suffered. I was there when we took that vote on TARP, and I saw the stock market as it took its 778-point decline. I got the calls the next day from people who were talking about their 401Ks. Real people suffer. This is about more than mega corporations doing battle with the government. Evictions: with 8.8 million jobs lost, people got evicted. I stand with the people, and I stand for FSOC doing its job because if it doesn't, real people will be hurt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Duffy. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, for 5 minutes. Mr. Royce. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate Mr. Pinschmidt being with us today. I will go back to something that Chairman McHenry mentioned, and that was following the FSOC's July 31st meeting, the Council announced that it would take a more focused analysis of industry-wide products and activities, and in the asset management industry they would do this this way rather than designating specific asset managers as systemically risky. So it is my understanding there has been a working group set up, or maybe about to be set up, to look at these products and activities. I have maybe five questions here that I would just ask you, and then you can give me your response. But if you want to list these as I go through them, the first would be, can you tell us the makeup of that working group, and the timeline for a review? Will there be a report put out for public comment at the conclusion? Does the OFR have a role in the process, I would ask? And will there be additional roundtables where all stakeholders can participate? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, you are right. Following the July 31st meeting, the readout for that meeting noted that the Council asked staff to undertake a detailed review of asset management activities and products. The Council has long recognized that asset managers are different than perhaps other nonbanks, and that was part of the reason in the 2012 final rule on the designations authority that the Council noted that additional work needed to be done, and that was the impetus for the OFR study, which identified certain activities. So to the extent that work is being done there, clearly when you look at asset managers and you compare them to other nonbanks, even the largest asset managers, their balance sheets are substantially smaller than other nonbank firms. There is very little leverage. There is an agency business model, which is quite distinct from a balance sheet business model. So to the extent that a company was in distress, they are not necessarily selling their own assets. The customers are kind of--it is their decision. Mr. Royce. Right. Mr. Pinschmidt. So these are different--oh, sorry. Mr. Royce. But the makeup of the working group and the timeline for review, if you could give me some information on that? Mr. Pinschmidt. In terms of the process going forward-- Mr. Royce. Right. Mr. Pinschmidt. --that is a decision that is being worked out at the Council level and-- Mr. Royce. That decision hasn't been made yet? Will there be a conclusion put out for comment, do you think? Mr. Pinschmidt. To the extent the Council recognizes the importance of engaging with the public on its work, and that was part of the reason the Council hosted an asset management conference back in May. So we would expect, to the extent that this work moves forward, additional sort of consultation and collaboration-- Mr. Royce. Maybe a public comment section--session at the end, then, would be appropriate, you are anticipating. Does the OFR have a role in the process? Mr. Pinschmidt. Certainly all the member agencies of the Council will be involved. Mr. Royce. Have the FSOC participants agreed that they will not meet with entities under consideration until an actual stage three designation is made, or--do you know? What is going on, on that front? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, in terms of the nonbanks designations process, what I would note is that we did put out the final rule that was subject to three rounds of comment. We recognize that was done 2 years ago now, and we have gone through a process with three different companies for designation. There are clearly new facts on the ground. The Council doesn't want to be frozen in its ways and its process. So as I noted in my oral remarks, certainly the Council recognizes we have received a lot of input; we have gone through the process a few times and we are evaluating-- Mr. Royce. Let me ask you this question: Is this policy formalized or documented? Are you putting out a documented process here that-- Mr. Pinschmidt. Yes. In terms of the interpretive guidance that accompanies the final rule, it notes the interaction between the Council and this is also supplemented in the hearing procedures for the designations process--it notes the interaction between the Council and companies under consideration. Mr. Royce. We have talked about transparency and due process during this hearing, and I think a simple solution here would be publishing what the process actually is regarding interaction with companies in stage two, or purgatory, I think, as our colleague rightly termed it, and that might be your best way forward, if I might suggest. Thank you. Mr. Duffy. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. Mr. Pinschmidt, I listened to your opening statement and I was taken with your commitment and support for openness, transparency in policy, and a flow of information. I think those are some of the phrases that you used in your opening statement. As I have listened to the testimony today, I have great concern that FSOC isn't open, it isn't transparent, and there is not a good flow of information. And I think you have seen a bipartisan concern in regard to the information that flows, in regard to transcripts from the meetings, from FSOC. And I think all of us recognize that there are things that cannot be disclosed. There is confidential information that you have access to that the companies don't want disclosed and wouldn't want to share it with you if it was to be disclosed. But there is a lot of information and a substantial portion of a transcript that can be disclosed, and there can be redactions. And FSOC, per your testimony today, has no willingness to actually engage in a process of disclosing not minutes, but transcripts of a meeting, maybe even with a delay. So I guess as you sit here today, you are still committed to not using the various tools even that the FOMC will use, with a delay in time and redacting sensitive information, that FSOC is still not, seeing bipartisan concern here, going to at least go back and discuss the possibility of disclosing transcripts? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, what I can say is that the Council recognizes it has a very important responsibility for transparency. It is a responsibility that has to be balanced, though, with the protection of confidential financial information. Mr. Duffy. Have you ever heard of redacting? Can you redact confidential information? That is a tool that you would have if you disclosed transcripts. Ms. Clowers, is that a tool that could be used--redacting sensitive information? Ms. Clowers. Yes. Mr. Duffy. Do you believe that if we had a little delay in time, as would be appropriate, and redacted sensitive information, that transcripts could be disclosed? Ms. Clowers. Correct. That is one of the things we noted in our 2012 report. We looked at different models, such as the open markets, and noted that those type of tools are available for FSOC. Mr. Duffy. Does the FOMC discuss sensitive information like monetary policy? Ms. Clowers. Yes. Mr. Duffy. And they still provide transcripts, yes? Ms. Clowers. Yes. Mr. Duffy. And, Mr. Pinschmidt, you are discussing far more sensitive information? Is that your testimony here today that the FOMC can provide transcripts to the public but you can't? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, what I would say is that the Council is committed to getting more information out-- Mr. Duffy. Listen, you are not. I would say I love the dance that you have done today, but you are not. You have not given us--any of us--a satisfactory answer that, listen, we are going to go back and we are going to have a hard conversation on transcripts and redacting and making sure that we send out more than--I am looking at your annual reevaluation of designation of nonbank financial companies and you wanted us to believe that your minutes, or the summary, which is a paragraph, is sufficient for the public. That is what you wanted us to believe, and as I look at it, at the end it says, ``Members of Council then asked questions and had a discussion.'' Nothing about the questions. Nothing about the discussion. Nothing. And then, ``The Council did not either--did not rescind either company's designation.'' What was the vote on this? What was the votes that were taken? How did everybody vote? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, the-- Mr. Duffy. How did everybody vote? Mr. Pinschmidt. --the document you are referring to is the readout from the meeting. Mr. Duffy. How did everybody vote? Do you disclose the votes? Do you know that I have a card right here, and every vote I make is public. Go to the Supreme Court. Every vote is public. How does everybody vote on FSOC? That isn't even disclosed. And I look at the notice of proposed designation at MetLife. You had one present vote. Who was that? Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, I am not in a position-- Mr. Duffy. Who was it? Mr. Pinschmidt. --to identify. Mr. Duffy. No, you are not. Again, you came and you said, you know what? We support openness, transparency, flow of information. You know what? I bet it was the one person who had insurance experience. And I would love to hear the conversation that he had with FSOC in those meetings, the one guy with insurance experience who voted present and probably would dissent. Again, don't come in and tell us you are open and transparent. We all want to see the process opened up; we want to see what is happening. Ms. Clowers, in her work--GAO has given you the same advice. So I guess I would look at the bipartisan effort and message that has been sent from this committee and go back and have a solid conversation and review the policies at FSOC. Mr. Pinschmidt. Congressman, we certainly look forward to working with the committee on that going forward. Mr. Duffy. Thank you. I appreciate that. My time has expired. The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. And without objection, this hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X September 17, 2014 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]