Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Closing the Enhanced Prudential Standards Loophole Act
A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, titled the "Closing the Enhanced Prudential Standards Loophole Act," aims to amend the Financial Stability Act of 2010. It seeks to extend enhanced supervision and prudential standards to large banks that do not have a bank holding company. The legislation ensures these banks are treated similarly to bank holding companies regarding total consolidated assets. This change would apply specific provisions of section 165 of the Financial Stability Act of 2010.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +3
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
The bill increases financial oversight of large banks to mitigate systemic risks to the economy.
- Scored +2
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Applying enhanced prudential standards to large banks helps protect consumers from the fallout of banking failures.
- Scored +1
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Increased bank regulation can contribute to greater financial stability for low-income depositors.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -1
Would high-income households be better off under this?
Increased regulatory compliance may increase costs for large financial institutions.
- Scored -1
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill imposes additional regulatory burdens on large banks that do not have a holding company structure.
- Scored -1
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
The bill increases the regulatory and compliance requirements for large-scale financial operations.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Application of enhanced supervision: The bill would apply the provisions of section 165 of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 to banks that do not have a bank holding company, treating them with the same standards as a bank holding company with similar total consolidated assets (Section 2).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts are explicitly stated in the text provided.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill increases financial oversight of large banks to mitigate systemic risks to the economy. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Applying enhanced prudential standards to large banks helps protect consumers from the fallout of banking failures.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Increased bank regulation can contribute to greater financial stability for low-income depositors. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Stronger banking standards help protect the savings of middle-income families. Would retired people be better off under this? — Enhanced banking supervision helps protect the stability of financial institutions used for retirement savings. Would billionaires be better off under this? — The bill increases the regulatory oversight of large banks used by the ultra-wealthy. Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill imposes additional regulatory burdens on large banks that do not have a holding company structure. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Increased regulatory compliance may increase costs for large financial institutions. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — The bill increases the regulatory and compliance requirements for large-scale financial operations. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — The bill imposes stricter prudential standards on large financial entities.
- 3/9/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Introduced in House