IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedgss/170.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The cost of implementing consumer financial regulations: an analysis of experience with the Truth in Savings Act

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The Truth in Savings Act mandates that financial institutions disclose certain information about the terms of consumer deposit accounts in specific forms and at specific times. Although many depository institutions provided disclosures of account terms before the act was passed in 1991, most did not satisfy completely all the requirements of the regulation (Regulation DD) adopted by the Federal Reserve Board to implement the law. Thus, the Truth in Savings law likely caused every depository institution to change its practices for consumer deposit accounts, and thereby to incur costs. ; To improve understanding of the process and costs of implementing regulatory changes, the Federal Reserve Board conducted the Survey of Compliance Costs for Truth in Savings in 1992-93, during the implementation period for the regulation. Presented in this study are survey findings on the changes in consumer deposit account practices and the costs of compliance at U.S. commercial banks. One of the key questions addressed in the study is how sensitive start-up costs for a regulation are to the extent of required changes in banks' policies and practices: Do banks that must make extensive changes incur greater costs in proportion to the amount of change? Evidence on this question, which was not previously available, has implications for regulatory agency policies on the frequency and magnitude of changes in regulations. ; Responses to the survey indicate that most banks provided extensive written disclosures to consumers before Truth in Savings but that most banks, if not all, had to change some policies and practices for consumer deposit accounts to comply with the law. The cost to banks of implementing the changes was $337 million in total, or $29,390 per bank. Statistical analysis using a cost function reveals that there were economies of scale in complying with Truth in Savings, a result that gives further credence to the findings of earlier studies involving other regulations. The implication of the finding is that small firms have a cost disadvantage in complying with new regulations. ; This study breaks new ground in examining the relationship between amount of change and compliance costs. Statistical analysis indicates that start-up costs for complying with Truth in Savings were insensitive to the extensiveness of necessary changes: Banks incurred implementation costs regardless of how much they had to change their practices. This result suggests that requiring banks to alter an infrequent practice may impose costs on all banks, not just on those that must make substantive changes. It also argues against a policy of making frequent minor revisions in regulations. An alternative policy of accumulating adjustments and making infrequent major revisions may reduce implementation costs by allowing banks to exploit economies of changing practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory E. Elliehausen & Barbara R. Lowrey, 1997. "The cost of implementing consumer financial regulations: an analysis of experience with the Truth in Savings Act," Staff Studies 170, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedgss:170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/staffstudies/170/default.htm
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/staffstudies/170/ss170.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frederick J. Schroeder, 1985. "Compliance costs and consumer benefits of the electronic fund transfer act : recent survey evidence," Staff Studies 143, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    2. McAllister, Patrick H. & McManus, Douglas, 1993. "Resolving the scale efficiency puzzle in banking," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(2-3), pages 389-405, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Burak Dolar & Ben Dale, 2020. "The Dodd–Frank Act’s non-uniform regulatory impact on the banking industry," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(2), pages 188-195, June.
    2. Gaganis, Chrysovalantis & Galariotis, Emilios & Pasiouras, Fotios & Staikouras, Christos, 2020. "Bank profit efficiency and financial consumer protection policies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 98-116.
    3. Dolar, Burak & Shughart II, William F., 2011. "Enforcement of the USA Patriot Act's anti-money laundering provisions: Have regulators followed a risk-based approach?," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 19-31.
    4. Fotios Pasiouras, 2018. "Financial Consumer Protection and the Cost of Financial Intermediation: Evidence from Advanced and Developing Economies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 902-924, February.
    5. Schenkel, Andreas, 2015. "Bankenregulierung und Bürokratiekosten: Ein Problemaufriss," Arbeitspapiere 152, University of Münster, Institute for Cooperatives.
    6. John R. Walter, 1998. "Can a safety net subsidy be contained?," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Win, pages 1-20.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manthos D. Delis & Sotirios Kokas & Steven Ongena, 2016. "Foreign Ownership and Market Power in Banking: Evidence from a World Sample," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 48(2-3), pages 449-483, March.
    2. Allen Berger & Robert DeYoung, 2001. "The Effects of Geographic Expansion on Bank Efficiency," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 19(2), pages 163-184, April.
    3. Williams, Jonathan, 2004. "Determining management behaviour in European banking," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(10), pages 2427-2460, October.
    4. Allen N. Berger & David B. Humphrey, 1994. "Bank scale economies, mergers, concentration, and efficiency: the U.S. experience," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 94-23, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    5. Chung-Hua Shen, 2005. "Cost efficiency and banking performances in a partial universal banking system: application of the panel smooth threshold model," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(9), pages 993-1009.
    6. Sul, Wonsik, 2000. "On the performance of the foreign subsidiaries of Korean banks: are securities investments really profitable?," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 207-222.
    7. R. Raymond Sant & Stephen B. Carter, 2015. "Acquired Credit Unions: Drivers of Takeover," International Journal of Business and Social Research, MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, vol. 5(8), pages 18-33, August.
    8. Subal Kumbhakar & Efthymios Tsionas, 2008. "Scale and efficiency measurement using a semiparametric stochastic frontier model: evidence from the U.S. commercial banks," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 585-602, June.
    9. Sufian, Fadzlan & Abdul Majid, Muhamed Zulkhibri, 2007. "Consolidation and efficiency: Evidence from non-bank financial institutions in Malaysia," MPRA Paper 12128, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 May 2007.
    10. Raj Aggarwal & Aigbe Akhigbe & James McNulty, 2006. "Are Differences in Acquiring Bank Profit Efficiency Priced in Financial Markets?," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 30(3), pages 265-286, December.
    11. Hirofumi Fukuyama & William L. Weber, 2017. "Japanese Bank Productivity, 2007–2012: A Dynamic Network Approach," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 649-676, October.
    12. Pohl, Birte, 2011. "Spillover and Competition Effects: Evidence from the Sub-Saharan African Banking Sector," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Berlin 2011 66, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
    13. Yingzhuo Yu & Cesar Escalante & Xiaohui Deng & Jack Houston & Lewell Gunter, 2011. "Analysing scale and scope specialization efficiencies of US agricultural and nonagricultural banks using the Fourier flexible functional form," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(15), pages 1103-1116.
    14. Weill, Laurent, 2009. "Convergence in banking efficiency across European countries," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 818-833, December.
    15. André Leclerc & Mario Fortin, 2003. "Production et rationalisation des intermédiaires financiers: Leçons à tirer de l’expérience des Caisses Populaires Acadiennes," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 397-432, September.
    16. Shaffer, Sherrill, 2001. "Banking conduct before the European single banking license: a cross-country comparison," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 79-104, March.
    17. Daley, Jenifer & Matthews, Kent & Zhang, Tiantian, 2011. "Post-crisis cost efficiency of Jamaican banks," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2011/27, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    18. Joseph P. Hughes & Loretta J. Mester, "undated". "Evidence on the Objectives of Bank Managers," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 4-94, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    19. David C. Wheelock & Paul W. Wilson, 2009. "Are U.S. banks too large?," Working Papers 2009-054, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
    20. Robert M. Adams & Paul W. Bauer & Robin C. Sickles, 2002. "Scope and scale economies in Federal Reserve payment processing," Working Papers (Old Series) 0213, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedgss:170. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ryan Wolfslayer ; Keisha Fournillier (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.