While researching Ball i googled "looking back / looking forward" and found the
Bipartisan policy center http://bipartisanpolicy.org/events/dodd-frank-at-five-looking-back-looking-ahead/
KEY WORDS ON THE PAGE
DODD-FRANK ACT, FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, LAEL BRAINARD, TOO BIG TO FAIL, WALL STREET
This page http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/tag/too-big-to-fail/ talks about TO BIG TO FAIL and had links to LIVING WILLS for banks and the DODD-FRANK ACT
key words FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (FDIC), FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, SIFIS, TOO BIG TO FAIL
11 large globally active bank holding companies (BHCs) are required to submit revised “living wills”—a plan for its own demise while it is still operational—to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) for review.1 These updated living wills describe how such banks would be resolved in the case of their failure using the existing U.S. Bankruptcy code and standard bank resolution authorities; they cannot assume the use of the newly created Orderly Liquidation Authority contained in Dodd-Frank’s Title II. If the plans aren’t up to the standards the FDIC and the Fed are expecting, it may start a countdown for more serious actions. Dodd-Frank grants regulators the power to deal harshly with firms whose wills are deemed “not credible,” but it remains to be seen whether the regulators will go down this route. Specifically, the two agencies can impose extra prudential requirements and possibly even forced divestitures.
Dodd-Frank requires all banks with consolidated assets greater than $50 billion (often called “bank SIFIs”) to submit living wills. The legislation also requires all nonbank SIFI’s to file living wills. The purpose is to make resolution of these firms easier, by requiring that each company provide a plan for its own demise while it is still operational. This is one of the tools in Dodd-Frank designed to end the “Too-Big-to-Fail” (TBTF) problem.
FDIC and the Fed found that the 2013 plans submitted by these 11 companies were not where they needed to be. The FDIC stated that the plans were “not credible and do not facilitate an orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.” The Fed stopped short of saying the plans were “not credible,” instead using the non-legal term “insufficient,” and said that the 11 BHCs “must take immediate action to improve their resolvability and reflect those improvements in their 2015 plans.” The statement implied that if the deficiencies were not cured in the 2015 plans, both regulators may move to label the plans “not credible". Doing so would trigger two timers. First, the Fed and the FDIC would set a time limit for the BHCs to make the plans credible under the threat of “more stringent capital, leverage, or liquidity requirements, or restrictions on the growth, activities, or operations of the company” until a credible plan is submitted. Dodd-Frank sets a second and more severe timer at two years, after which the Fed and the FDIC would have the authority to force divestiture of assets or break up the banks. The 11 BHCs were Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Barclays, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, State Street Corp., and UBS.
This page http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/bank-living-wills-five-years-later-still-in-probate/ outlines some of the plans for living wills
this page has keywords AARON KLEIN, FINANCIAL STABILITY BOARD, FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL (FSOC),TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/events/coordination-or-chaos-key-issues-in-global-insurance-regulation/