Federal Reserve moves to ease capital rules for Wall Street’s biggest banks

Fed unveils a 90-day comment plan to ease Basel III and G-SIB capital rules, modestly cutting requirements for large banks and more for regional lenders.

The Federal Reserve voted Thursday morning to formally release a sweeping package of proposed bank capital reforms, launching a 90-day public comment period on changes that would modestly reduce capital requirements for the largest U.S. financial institutions — and more substantially ease the burden on smaller regional banks. The proposals, previewed by Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman in a March 12 speech at the Cato Institute, represent the most significant overhaul of the post-2008 bank capital framework in years and a clear victory for Wall Street institutions that had spent years lobbying against an earlier, more stringent version of the rules.

The package addresses what Bowman described as “the four pillars” of the regulatory capital framework for the largest banks: stress testing, the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio (eSLR), the Basel III endgame rules, and the G-SIB surcharge applied to globally significant institutions. Together, the proposals would produce a net decrease in capital requirements for large banks “by a small amount,” while smaller banks focused on traditional lending would see “slightly larger reductions”. For major institutions such as JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, the modest increase from revised Basel III calculations would be more than offset by a recalibrated G-SIB surcharge — one Bowman argued had grown disproportionate to the risks these banks actually carry.

Reversing a Post-Crisis Overcorrection

The philosophical underpinning of the reform is a conviction that capital requirements imposed after the 2008 financial crisis have gradually overshot their intended purpose. “When capital requirements become excessive, they hinder the banking system’s essential role of providing credit to the real economy,” Bowman said in her Cato Institute remarks. She described the proposals as a “sensible recalibration” designed to remove redundant standards and better align requirements with actual institutional risk profiles, rather than a wholesale rollback of post-crisis prudential safeguards.​

The eSLR reforms are particularly significant. A final rule approved by the FDIC and Federal Reserve in November 2025 — effective April 1, 2026 — had already replaced the existing 2% eSLR buffer for global systemically important banks with a buffer equal to half of each institution’s Method 1 G-SIB surcharge, capped at 1% for subsidiary banks. FDIC staff estimated that change alone would reduce aggregate Tier 1 capital requirements by $13 billion, or under 2%, for G-SIBs, and by $219 billion — or 28% — for major bank subsidiaries. The new proposals being voted on Thursday extend that logic across the Basel III and G-SIB surcharge frameworks.​

The banking industry responded favourably. The American Bankers Association, Financial Services Forum, and Bank Policy Institute issued a joint statement praising Bowman’s approach as “a thoughtful, bottom-up” resolution to the concerns raised by 97% of commenters on the prior Basel proposal, calling for a capital framework that “reflects the actual risks in the banking system, rather than requirements that impede economic growth”.​

The timing carries broader market significance. With the Fed holding rates steady at 3.5%–3.75% and explicitly raising its 2026 inflation forecast to 2.7% on Wednesday, the capital easing offers Wall Street a degree of policy relief that monetary policy itself is not currently providing. Freeing up capital for lending, share buybacks, and dividends — precisely the stated aim of the reform — may inject some flexibility into a financial system otherwise navigating a geopolitical oil shock and a higher-for-longer rate environment.

Critics, however, argue that loosening capital buffers during a period of elevated macro uncertainty runs counter to the spirit of prudential regulation. Bowman indicated no implementation timeline beyond coordinating with other international jurisdictions — leaving the final shape of the rules subject to the 90-day comment process.