Federal Reserve opens comment on reputational risk rule

What to Know:

• Fed proposes codifying dropped reputational risk; comments due 60 days post publication.
• Shift refocuses supervision on measurable financial, operational, legal, and compliance risks.

According to the Federal Reserve Board, the central bank has requested public comment on a proposal to codify its earlier decision to remove “reputational risk” from bank supervision, with comments due 60 days after Federal Register publication. The proposal aims to formalize that examiners should not penalize or discourage banks from serving lawful customers based solely on perceived reputational concerns unrelated to safety and soundness.

The move would formalize the June 2025 shift eliminating reputational risk as a supervisory factor. In practice, the framework redirects attention to material financial, operational, legal, and compliance risks that can be evidenced and measured.

Why it matters for bank supervision and examiners’ focus

For day-to-day supervision, the change signals a narrower, more evidence-based lens for examinations. Institutions that bank lawful but politically sensitive industries may experience more predictable exams, while examiners emphasize documented safety-and-soundness impacts over broad perception issues.

At the interagency level, as summarized by JD Supra, the FDIC and OCC have proposed defining “reputational risk” and barring its use as a basis for supervisory criticism or compelled business changes, citing concerns that the concept has been applied subjectively and inconsistently. A harmonized approach would clarify expectations across federal banking regulators.

Skeptics warn the shift could dull early-warning tools. As reported by American Banker, critics argue reputational signals, such as customer complaints, governance red flags, or whistleblower claims, can precede measurable losses, and point to past episodes at institutions like Wells Fargo and Danske Bank as cautionary examples.

Consumer-advocacy perspectives likewise stress that sociopolitical developments can migrate into balance-sheet risk if ignored. “Ignoring these kinds of risks until they manifest as financial harm is perilous,” said Woodstock Institute in a comment opposing restrictions on the use of reputational risk.

At the time of this writing, large-bank shares were volatile; JPMorgan Chase closed down 4.22% to $297.67 while the S&P 500 fell 1.04%, based on data from Zacks Equity Research. Market moves do not determine supervisory policy but illustrate the backdrop for risk debates.

What is reputational risk in bank supervision?

Reputational risk in bank supervision refers to the potential for negative public perception to affect a bank’s business, for example by pressuring funding, deposits, or counterparties. In contrast, examiners’ core focus areas, financial, operational, legal, and compliance risks, are typically assessed through documented evidence and measurable impacts. The current proposal centers on keeping supervisory criticism tied to those material, demonstrable risks rather than broad perception alone.