Main St. not Wall St.
They're a long way from Wall Street, but communities such as Monroeville, Murrysville and Greensburg may face complex capital regulations imposed on the monumental financial institutions in New York.
Pending regulations would unnecessarily subject community banks to the same requirements as Wall Street megabanks. This will make a tangible difference and hurt our local communities.
The recent financial crisis took down some larger financial firms and contributed to the ongoing economic downturn, but what you might not know is that in response, a body of regulators based in Switzerland established new requirements on how much capital reserves large institutions must hold.
It's not an unreasonable response to a crisis borne by Wall Street. Here's the catch. U.S. financial regulators' plans for implementing these standards propose imposing them universally — even on community banks.
This plan is unreasonable and dangerous for community banks, which already maintain the industry's highest capital levels and operate a relationship-based model that recognizes the unique needs of their customers.
Imposing complex regulations on them will limit the resources they can use to lend and reinvest in their communities, threatening the economy's recovery.
To prevent another Wall Street fiasco, we should not force community banks out of business and leave their customers in the hands of the megabanks.
Without a thriving community banking industry, our financial options will not be that far from Wall Street.
The writer is president and CEO of Standard Bank.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.