I opposed the March proposed Statement of Policy on Bank Merger Transactions because it appeared to reflect a bias against bank mergers that was bad policy and contrary to law. I went on to identify some specific examples, such as (i) the decision to move away from any metric-based presumptions or safe harbors for mergers that do not pose competitive effects concerns, (ii) the absence of a clearly defined, tailored approach to assessing competitive effects in rural markets, and (iii) the limited scope of the new financial stability considerations, which related exclusively to ways in which a merger could increase risk to financial stability.
The revisions to the proposal have not addressed these concerns. If anything, the decision to reject similar and other concerns raised by the commenters on the proposal confirms that this Statement of Policy does indeed implement a bias against bank mergers that is bad policy and contrary to law. I therefore cannot support this final Statement of Policy.