Following a wave of savings-and-loan failures in the 1980s, US lawmakers enacted a suite of regulatory changes as part of the 1989 Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). Among other things, the new law required that regulators make their enforcement decision and order (EDO) documents against banks and other financial institutions public—a move toward transparency that has broadly changed the behavior of bank monitors as well as outcomes for banks, find the Federal Reserve Board’s Anya Kleymenova and Chicago Booth’s Rimmy E. Tomy.
Comparing regulators’ behavior before FIRREA (when EDOs were generally not made public) with their behavior after the disclosure mandate, Kleymenova and Tomy find that regulators tend to take action more often, and earlier, now that their decisions are subject to public scrutiny. The researchers argue that reputational concerns are likely drivers of these changes, and that the impact on the banking community has been mixed.
To identify pre-FIRREA enforcement actions, Kleymenova and Tomy relied on publicly available termination documents, and hand-collected a subset of 1983 and 1984 predisclosure enforcement actions from the US National Archives. They then compared these with post-FIRREA EDOs issued between 1989 and 1997, which are a matter of public record, and find that regulator interventions changed in some striking ways since the shift in disclosure regimes.