智通财经APP获悉，就在农林中央金库(Norinchukin Bank)似乎从投资美债等海外债券而蒙受的近120亿 美元巨额亏损中逐渐恢复之际，这家日本银行巨头如今又面临新的质疑——该行的合资企业可能因美国 汽车零部件巨头第一品牌集团(First Brands Group)破产而遭受打击。 据悉，农林中央金库与三井物产是JA Mitsui Leasing的最大股东，而后者的全资子公司Katsumi Global向 9月底申请破产的第一品牌集团提供了17.5亿美元的贸易融资。目前尚不清楚这笔风险敞口是否会导致 JA Mitsui Leasing及其股东蒙受损失。但此案可能成为农林中央金库在努力加强风险管理并修复声誉过 程中的一次挫折。 今年早些时候，农林中央金库在截至3月底的年报中披露，因为投资美国国债等海外债券，财年录得1.8 万亿日元(约合117亿美元)的巨额亏损。该公司同时表示，账上债券还有1.24万亿日元的未实现亏损。 JA Mitsui Leasing首席执行官Keito Shimbu在2021年上任前曾任农林中央金库的全球投资主管。此外，该 合资企业的董事会成员还包括其他来自农林中央金库与三井物产的 ...

Core Viewpoint - Michelle Bowman, a Federal Reserve Governor, emphasizes her focus on regulatory responsibilities, including revising capital rules for large banks and addressing the issue of "debanking" [1][2][4]. Regulatory Focus - Bowman is currently dedicated to her regulatory duties, pushing for changes in capital rules for large banks and combating "debanking" practices [2][4]. - She has initiated a new capital rule development that is risk-based and aims to reduce the burden on large banks compared to previous proposals from the Biden administration [4]. Capital Rules Reform - The Federal Reserve is reviewing multiple capital rules and plans to propose key measures that will not change regardless of the chairperson's position [4]. - The new proposal could potentially lower capital requirements for large bank subsidiaries by up to 27%, with a public feedback period ending on August 26 [4]. Reputation Risk Review - Bowman seeks to reduce regulatory scrutiny related to "reputation risk" in bank examinations, responding to pressures from banking groups and Republican lawmakers [5][6]. - The Federal Reserve has committed to not considering "reputation risk" in bank reviews, which has been criticized as unfair [5]. Interest Rate Stance - Bowman reaffirms her support for interest rate cuts, maintaining her position even when it conflicted with the majority view during the July Federal Open Market Committee meeting [7]. - The futures market predicts an 83% chance of a 25 basis point rate cut in September, indicating increased uncertainty [7]. Embracing New Technologies - Bowman calls for the banking industry and regulators to embrace emerging technologies like AI and cryptocurrencies to avoid being marginalized in the economy [8][9]. - She encourages more interaction between the industry and regulators to better understand blockchain and digital assets [9]. Employee Cryptocurrency Holdings - Bowman suggests allowing Federal Reserve employees to hold a small amount of cryptocurrencies to enhance their understanding of these markets [9][10]. - This approach aims to attract and retain skilled bank examiners by providing them with practical experience in handling digital assets [10].

Group 1 - The Federal Reserve's Vice Chair Bowman emphasizes the need for a fundamental shift in regulatory approaches towards emerging technologies, including cryptocurrencies, blockchain, and artificial intelligence [1] - Bowman advocates for a proactive collaboration between regulators and financial institutions to adapt to technological changes, moving away from a cautious mindset [1] - The recent passage of the "Genius Act" by Congress, which establishes a comprehensive framework for stablecoin regulation, is highlighted as a significant development that opens doors for institutional investment and application [1] Group 2 - The Federal Reserve has announced that "reputational risk" will no longer be included in bank examinations, following an executive order from President Trump to remove its usage from regulatory guidelines [2] - Bowman acknowledges that the Federal Reserve is at a critical juncture, facing the choice to seize opportunities to shape the future or risk being left behind by the evolving financial landscape [2]

Group 1: Retirement Savings Investment - The first executive order signed by President Trump aims to allow ordinary Americans to invest their retirement savings in private market assets, including private equity, cryptocurrencies, and private real estate, opening new opportunities for Wall Street investment firms [1][2] - This initiative provides hedge funds and private equity firms with access to a significant pool of funds similar to 401(k) retirement plans, which they have long sought [2] - However, investing in private markets typically involves higher fees and lower liquidity, raising uncertainty about employers' willingness to include private market options in 401(k) plans [2][3] - Concerns have been raised regarding potential lawsuits and regulatory pressures on asset management firms if these new investments fail to deliver expected returns [2] Group 2: Banking and "De-Banking" Focus - The second executive order focuses on the issue of "de-banking," particularly concerning large banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, which have been accused of excluding certain clients based on "reputation risk" [1][4] - The order aims to investigate whether banks are discriminating against clients for political or religious reasons and to impose disciplinary actions on those found guilty [4] - The directive also instructs regulatory agencies to cease using "reputation risk" as a justification for client exclusion, especially in politically motivated decisions [4] - Some Republican figures have pointed out that banks often use vague legal risks or internal rules to justify their political decisions [4]

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding major banks, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, rejecting deposit services for former President Trump highlights potential discrimination against conservative clients in the banking sector [1][4][5]. Group 1: Bank Responses - JPMorgan Chase stated that it does not close accounts for political reasons and supports regulatory reforms [5]. - Bank of America expressed its willingness to collaborate with the government to clarify policies regarding client services [5]. - Both banks have previously denied allegations of refusing service based on political affiliations [5][6]. Group 2: Regulatory Implications - The Trump administration is preparing an executive order to investigate financial institutions for potential violations of laws related to political discrimination against clients [4][5]. - If violations are confirmed, penalties could include fines and other disciplinary actions against the banks [4]. - The executive order is expected to be announced shortly, indicating a shift in regulatory scrutiny towards banks' client acceptance policies [5]. Group 3: Industry Context - The banking industry has faced criticism regarding the rejection of clients based on perceived "reputation risk," which has been a longstanding concern among banks [7]. - Regulatory pressures, particularly in high-risk sectors like cryptocurrency, have led banks to exercise caution in client relationships [6][7]. - Analysts suggest that the core issue lies in excessive regulation and the discretionary power of regulators, which complicates banks' operational decisions [7].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding major banks, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, refusing to provide deposit services to former President Trump has reignited discussions about political discrimination in banking practices [2][3]. Group 1: Bank Responses - JPMorgan Chase stated that it does not close accounts for political reasons and supports regulatory reforms [3][4]. - Bank of America expressed its willingness to collaborate with the government to clarify related policies and improve the regulatory framework [4]. Group 2: Regulatory Actions - The Trump administration is preparing an executive order to direct regulatory agencies to investigate whether financial institutions are denying services based on political reasons, potentially violating various laws [3][4]. - The executive order may be announced on August 6, with the White House yet to respond at the time of reporting [3]. Group 3: Industry Context - The banking industry has faced scrutiny over claims of refusing service to conservative clients, with banks denying such allegations and emphasizing compliance with federal laws aimed at preventing financial crimes [4][5]. - The concept of "reputational risk" has been a focal point of contention, with banks arguing that excessive regulations and aggressive regulators hinder their operations [5][6]. Group 4: Market Impact - Following Trump's allegations, both JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America experienced a decline of over 1% in their stock prices during afternoon trading [2].

Core Points - Trump accuses JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America of ideological discrimination, claiming that the banking industry is biased against him [1] - Trump is seeking help from smaller banks due to the alleged discrimination from larger banks [1] - A proposed executive order will require banks to review the reasons for closing customer accounts within 120 days, with regulatory agencies conducting their own reviews [2] Group 1: Allegations and Responses - Trump claims that JPMorgan Chase demanded he close long-held accounts within 20 days and that Bank of America rejected a deposit request exceeding $1 billion [1] - Both JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America deny closing accounts for ideological reasons, with JPMorgan's spokesperson stating that they support regulatory reform [3] - Bank of America’s CEO agrees with Trump on the need to reassess existing laws and regulations, suggesting that better decisions could be made retrospectively [4] Group 2: Regulatory Environment - The Bank Policy Institute emphasizes the need for revised regulations, pointing out issues of overregulation and discretionary power among regulators [5] - The proposed executive order aims to address concerns over banks terminating customer relationships due to reputational risks [7] - The Federal banking regulators plan to eliminate "reputational risk" as a consideration in bank reviews to prevent forced terminations of customer relationships [7] Group 3: Industry Practices - Conservative groups have long criticized major financial institutions for their "de-banking" practices against certain industries, such as gun manufacturers and fossil fuel companies [6] - Following the 2018 Florida school shooting, Bank of America and Citigroup implemented restrictions on lending to companies selling firearms, although Citigroup recently lifted its restrictions [7]

Group 1 - Major banks in the U.S. are facing dual pressure from Republican state governments and the Trump administration, which accuse them of discriminating against industries like gun manufacturing and fossil fuels [1][2] - The Trump administration is considering an executive order on "debanking," which could shift federal power towards the banking sector and threaten banks' relationships with the federal government, including core operations like Treasury sales [1][3][4] - Conservative states have blacklisted certain banks, prohibiting them from participating in state contracts, claiming that banks are making business decisions based on political motives rather than traditional risk assessments [2][3] Group 2 - Banks argue that their business decisions are based on financial, legal, and reputational risks, and they have been meeting with state officials to counter accusations of political discrimination [2][3] - Major banks like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo are reconsidering restrictions on coal industry partnerships, with Bank of America lifting its ban on coal companies by the end of 2023 [3] - The Trump administration's involvement has made "bank discrimination" a new focal point, with accusations from conservative groups that banks are refusing services based on political affiliations [3][4] Group 3 - The regulatory environment is shifting, with Republican lawmakers proposing legislation to prevent regulators from considering reputational risk factors in their assessments [5] - Increased meetings between large banks and Republican state governments indicate a growing concern over the political implications of banking decisions [5][6] - Officials like Oklahoma's State Treasurer Todd Russ emphasize the need for banks to act impartially without political or ideological influences in their financial decisions [6]

Core Viewpoint - The Federal Reserve has announced the cessation of incorporating reputational risk assessments in bank reviews, responding to criticisms from banking groups and Republican lawmakers regarding the fairness of this mechanism [1] Regulatory Changes - The Federal Reserve is revising the relevant language in regulatory documents to replace the reputational risk framework with more specific financial risk analyses, while maintaining strict requirements for banks' risk management [1] - This policy shift aligns with Chairman Powell's earlier commitment to remove provisions that allowed regulators to track banks' "controversial statements or activities" [1] Industry Reactions - Critics have pointed out that some bank examiners have used reputational risk to pressure financial institutions to sever ties with clients in the cryptocurrency sector, gun industry, and politically sensitive customers, even when these relationships did not pose a tangible threat to bank asset safety [1] - The term "de-banking," introduced during the Trump administration, has resurfaced, referring to the unilateral termination of services to specific clients by financial institutions, although consumer advocacy groups argue that the severity of this issue is overstated [1] Broader Regulatory Impact - The regulatory reform movement has prompted a chain reaction, with the acting chairman of the FDIC, Travis Hill, stating in March that the agency plans to completely remove reputational risk from the regulatory framework [1] - The OCC also announced earlier this year the removal of related language from its examination manual, indicating a significant shift in the regulatory framework governing the U.S. banking industry [1]

Core Viewpoint - The Federal Reserve has announced that its regulatory agencies will no longer consider "reputational risk" when reviewing banks [1] Group 1 - The decision indicates a shift in the regulatory framework, potentially allowing banks to operate with less concern over public perception [1] - This change may lead to increased risk-taking behavior among banks, as reputational factors will not influence regulatory assessments [1] - The move could impact the overall stability of the banking sector, as banks may prioritize profit over reputation [1]