"Legal ambiguity" becomes the focus of the game! Wall Street major banks lobby the Fed to ensure loose regulation once and for all.

According to reports, large Wall Street banks are privately lobbying the Federal Reserve to ensure that any new bank regulatory system design will not be easily overturned by future governments. Informed sources reveal that these banks are particularly requesting the Federal Reserve to formally address a legal ambiguity issue regarding the status of a less stringent regulatory process to replace "Matters Requiring Attention" (MRA). This would provide banks with a more stable legal foundation in the long term. Sources indicate that the Federal Reserve plans to provide a clearer explanation on this issue. Michelle Bowman, the current Vice Chair for Supervision at the Federal Reserve, is leading significant reforms to the Federal Reserve's bank regulatory rules. She believes that the current regulatory process has placed too heavy a burden on banks, weakening their ability to provide loans to businesses and individuals. Critics, however, point out that the strict regulatory rules introduced after the 2008 financial crisis have led banks to abandon certain types of financing activities, allowing non-bank financial institutions not subject to the same regulatory constraints to fill the gap. Under the proposed new regulatory rules, the Federal Reserve will significantly reduce its use of MRA. For a long time, MRA has been the main tool for bank examiners to force lending institutions to correct risk management and internal control deficiencies. Bowman stated that many MRAs actually focus on minor errors that do not directly involve operational risks. In October of last year, the Federal Reserve announced that it will only use MRA in cases involving significant financial risks in the future, and for other issues, it will use "observations" for informal guidance. This "observations" mechanism was actually used by regulatory agencies prior to 2013. However, under the new regulatory framework, there is legal ambiguity in the use of "observations", as it is not clear what actions the regulatory agencies will take if banks do not address them. Reports suggest that banks are concerned that the future leadership of the Federal Reserve, dominated by Democrats, may use this ambiguity to escalate "observations" to MRAs if issues are not addressed.