#AI ChatGPT - Grok: Though authorized by the U.S. Congress, are the regulators’ risk weighted bank capital requirements, a law?
I asked: If the U.S. Congress has authorized regulators to impose a system where different types of assets are assigned different risk weights, influencing the amount of capital banks must hold against them, does that make such system a law?"
ChatGPT answered:
Yes — but with important nuance.
When the U.S. Congress delegates authority to regulatory agencies (like the Federal Reserve, FDIC, or OCC) to implement and enforce a system — such as risk-weighted capital requirements under the Basel framework — it does not make the risk weights themselves a statute (law enacted directly by Congress). Rather:
Congress passes enabling legislation, such as the Federal Reserve Act or Dodd-Frank Act, that gives regulators the legal authority to create detailed rules to ensure financial stability.
Within that authority, regulators issue binding regulations, such as capital adequacy requirements, often aligned with Basel standards.
These regulations have the force of law, meaning banks must comply with them, and noncompliance can be punished by law (e.g., enforcement actions, fines, or restrictions).
So to summarize:
If Congress disagreed with them, it could change the underlying law or restrict regulatory discretion.
I said: Thanks!
It replied: You're very welcome! If you'd ever like to explore how that delegation of authority could be challenged or restructured—or anything else related—just let me know.
Grok answered:
No, the system of risk-weighted capital requirements imposed by regulators is not itself a law, but rather a regulation or regulatory framework established under the authority granted by Congress through legislation. Here's the distinction:
Law: A law is a statute passed by Congress and signed by the President (or enacted through other constitutional processes). It provides the legal framework and authority for regulators to act. For example, laws like the Dodd-Frank Act or earlier banking legislation (e.g., the Federal Reserve Act or Basel-related enabling statutes) may authorize regulators to set capital requirements for banks.
Regulation: The risk-weighted asset system, such as that based on Basel Committee guidelines, is a set of rules or standards issued by regulatory agencies (e.g., the Federal Reserve, OCC, or FDIC) under the authority of a law. These regulations have the force of law, meaning they are legally binding, but they are not laws themselves. They are administrative rules designed to implement the broader statutory framework.
In this case, Congress authorizes regulators to create and enforce such systems through legislation, but the specific risk weights and capital requirements are determined by the regulators (e.g., through Federal Register notices, rule-making processes, or adoption of international standards like Basel III). These regulations are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how agencies create and enforce rules, and can be challenged in court if they exceed the authority granted by Congress or are deemed arbitrary or capricious.
In summary, the risk-weighted system is a regulatory framework, not a law, but it carries legal weight because it is authorized by statute.
I said: Thanks!
It replied: You're welcome! If you have more questions about banking regulations or anything else, I'm here to help.
Posts
