PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Dodd-Frank and Diversity

| No Comments


Last week, six federal financial regulators issued a proposed joint policy statement on standards for assessing the diversity policies of the entities they regulate. The proposal stems from a little-noticed provision of Dodd-Frank, which requires directors of the regulators' newly established Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion to develop standards for "assessing the diversity policies and practices of" regulated entities.These new standards will impose additional costs on regulated entities, but it is not clear that they will further diversity and inclusion efforts.

Banks, broker-dealers, credit unions and other financial institutions are already subject to existing employment and contracting laws. Moreover, financial institutions interested in finding and fostering the best talent have instituted programs to hire, retain, and promote as diverse a workforce as possible. A new regulatory checklist could do more harm than good by forcing changes to diversity programs that are working well and adding to the already overwhelming regulatory burden faced by financial institutions--particularly small ones, which can play an important role in serving minority communities.

The regulators promise not to examine financial institutions for their adherence to the standards, but "encourage" the use of the standards. A regulator's encouragement to do something tends to function as a de facto requirement. In their proposal, the regulators suggest that financial institutions conduct a quantitative and qualitative self-assessment of compliance with the standards, submit that assessment to their regulator, and post on their websites reports of their progress towards complying with those standards. The agencies are to be commended for working together on--and building some flexibility into--the proposed standards. Nevertheless, the proposed standards might not achieve their intended positive results.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.