The TIER Act of 2025 updates numerical asset-size thresholds across key statutes—the Federal Reserve Act, the Bank Holding Company Act, and multiple Dodd‑Frank provisions—raising several statutory cutoffs (for example, $250 billion → $370 billion; $100 billion → $150 billion; $10 billion → $15 billion). It then adds a new automatic indexing mechanism that ties future adjustments to current‑dollar U.S. GDP, plus a companion mandate requiring the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC to review and adjust rule‑based thresholds every five years.
This matters for institutions and compliance teams because the bill changes which firms are subject to enhanced prudential supervision, stress testing, and special assessment regimes. By indexing to nominal GDP and prescribing rounding, the bill aims to prevent “regulatory creep” from inflation and nominal growth — but it also hands substantial technical authority to regulators to recalibrate coverage on a repeating schedule, creating planning and operational implications for regulated firms and agencies alike.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends specific statutory dollar triggers (raising multiple thresholds immediately) and inserts two Dodd‑Frank provisions that require the Board of Governors to recalculate covered thresholds every five years using the ratio of current‑dollar U.S. GDP. It also directs the Federal Reserve, Comptroller of the Currency, and FDIC to review and modify thresholds established by regulation on the same five‑year cadence and to report to Congress.
Who It Affects
Large and mid‑sized bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, and any nonbank financial companies subject to Dodd‑Frank section 165; the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC; compliance, risk, and legal teams at firms near revised cutoffs. Clearinghouses, securities firms, and other regulated entities could be indirectly affected if agencies retool rule thresholds.
Why It Matters
By converting fixed-dollar triggers into amounts that are adjusted for nominal GDP growth, the bill reduces the likelihood that inflation or long‑term nominal expansion alone will pull more firms into enhanced regulation. That preserves a relative scale for coverage but also changes which institutions will face capital, liquidity, and supervisory obligations — and it requires agencies to execute periodic technical recalibrations that will affect compliance planning.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The TIER Act starts by changing specific numeric thresholds embedded in banking statutes and in Dodd‑Frank. Those immediate edits move several key cutoffs upward—most prominently increasing a range used in Fed assessments to $150 billion–$370 billion and raising multiple $250 billion statutory triggers to $370 billion, while also lifting smaller thresholds such as $10 billion to $15 billion.
Those edits are mechanical but meaningful: they shift the starting line for several forms of enhanced supervision and some statutory reporting or authority triggers.
To make those numbers durable, the bill adds a process in Dodd‑Frank for periodic adjustments. Beginning with a recalculation on April 1, 2031 and every five years after, the Board of Governors must increase the covered thresholds by the ratio of current‑dollar U.S. GDP (the latest published value for the year before the adjustment) to the GDP value for the calendar year preceding April 1, 2026 — but only if that ratio is greater than 1.
The statute prescribes rounding rules (larger amounts rounded up to the nearest $50 billion; amounts under $100 billion rounded up to the nearest $5 billion), requires publication in the Federal Register by April 5 after calculation, and makes any increase effective January 1 of the year after the calculation.For thresholds set in regulations rather than statute, the bill gives agencies a parallel five‑year review and modification duty. By June 30, 2026, and every five years thereafter, the Federal Reserve, Comptroller of the Currency, and FDIC must examine regulations implementing section 165 (and regulations cross‑referencing Board rules) and adjust any non‑statutory numeric thresholds by a comparable GDP ratio measured from the effective date of each threshold.
The agencies must use the most recent Commerce Department GDP data, seek uniformity where feasible, apply the statutory rounding guidance when possible, and send reports of any changes to Congress.Taken together, the immediate number changes and the indexing regime convert fixed nominal cutoffs into a mechanism intended to preserve their economic scale over time. The bill does not lower thresholds and only increases them when nominal GDP has risen; it also builds a five‑year operational cadence that regulators must manage and communicate.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill immediately raises multiple statutory asset thresholds — e.g.
several Dodd‑Frank $250 billion triggers become $370 billion, the Fed assessment lower bound moves from $100 billion to $150 billion, and a $10 billion BHCA cutoff becomes $15 billion.
Starting April 1, 2031, and every five years thereafter, the Board must increase covered thresholds by the ratio of current‑dollar U.S. GDP (most recently published) to GDP for the year before April 1, 2026, but only if that ratio exceeds 1.
Rounding rules force increases upward: amounts ≥ $100 billion are rounded up to the nearest $50 billion; amounts < $100 billion are rounded up to the nearest $5 billion.
Adjustments calculated by the Board must be published in the Federal Register by April 5 of the calculation year and take effect on January 1 of the following year.
By June 30, 2026 (and every five years after), the Fed, OCC, and FDIC must review and, where appropriate, modify regulatory thresholds not set by statute, seek uniformity, and report any changes to Congress.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Immediate numeric increases to statute
This cluster of amendments directly replaces dollar figures in a handful of statutes and prior acts: changes appear in section 11(s) of the Federal Reserve Act (assessment thresholds), the Bank Holding Company Act (section 4(k)(6)(B)(ii)), and multiple Dodd‑Frank provisions (sections 116, 121, 163, 164, 165 and the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act note). Practically, the effect is immediate: a set of institutions that previously met or exceeded older cutoffs may fall below the new ones. For compliance teams this is a straightforward re‑calculation of balance sheet totals against new numeric triggers, but for supervisors it changes the universe of entities automatically subject to enhanced prudential authorities.
Five‑year GDP indexing for statutory thresholds
Section 177 mandates that the Board increase covered statutory thresholds every five years using a simple GDP ratio based on current‑dollar U.S. GDP, with the denominator fixed to the calendar year before April 1, 2026. The provision requires the Board to use the most recent Commerce Department data, to round upward following explicit rules, to publish the new amounts in the Federal Register by April 5 of the calculation year, and to make increases effective the following January 1. Functionally, this creates an automated, nominal‑GDP‑linked escalation that prevents inflation or long‑term nominal growth from expanding the regulated population simply because dollar values rose over time.
Agency review and adjustment of regulatory (non‑statutory) thresholds
Section 178 directs the Board, the Comptroller, and the FDIC to review by June 30, 2026—and every five years thereafter—regulations implementing section 165 or cross‑referencing Board rules to identify thresholds set by rule (not statute). Agencies must then adjust those thresholds by an analogous GDP ratio measured from the effective date of each threshold, use up‑to‑date GDP values, seek interagency uniformity where feasible, apply the statutory rounding conventions, and deliver reports to Congress describing their changes. This is not purely advisory: the agencies are required to modify thresholds they identify, though how they execute notice‑and‑comment or other administrative steps will matter in practice.
Publication, timing, and table of contents update
The bill prescribes precise publication and timing mechanics: the Board publishes new statutory amounts in the Federal Register by April 5 following a recalculation, and increases take effect January 1 of the subsequent year. The bill also amends the Dodd‑Frank table of contents to insert the two new sections. These technical provisions force a predictable schedule for communication and implementation but also create discrete windows in which firms must monitor potential coverage changes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Mid‑sized bank holding companies and savings & loan holding companies near prior cutoffs — immediate upward thresholds will remove some firms from mandatory enhanced prudential requirements, reducing regulatory compliance, reporting, and potential capital planning burdens.
- Large regional banks that want to avoid section 165 obligations — by raising the statutory line and then indexing it to nominal GDP, the bill reduces the chance they are swept into enhanced supervision purely due to long‑term nominal growth.
- Regulated firms’ shareholders and management — fewer institutions subject to stricter supervisory constraints can mean lower compliance costs and fewer supervisory restrictions on activities and capital allocation.
- Regulators seeking a stable coverage metric — indexing provides a transparent, data‑driven method to preserve the economic scale underlying statutory triggers, which can simplify long‑term supervisory planning.
- Entities that rely on predictable thresholds (e.g., consultants, auditors) — the five‑year schedule and public notices create a known cadence for updates, improving forward planning.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC — agencies must perform technical GDP‑based recalculations, adjust regulations, publish Federal Register notices, and prepare congressional reports, increasing administrative workload and possibly requiring new modeling resources.
- Compliance and legal teams at firms near adjusted thresholds — even if removed from coverage, these teams must track recalculations, reassess compliance posture, and be ready for reclassification on the five‑year cadence.
- Firms that lose economies of scale in supervision — some benefits of being in a supervised perimeter (e.g., predictable examiner relationships or access to certain facilities) could be reduced, and those firms must manage the transition.
- Market participants and counterparties — changing the set of supervised firms changes counterparties’ credit and operational risk profiles, requiring updates to due diligence and contracts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between preserving the original legislative intent behind size‑based supervisory triggers (keeping the regulated population relatively constant in economic scale) and preserving Congress’s policy choices about which institutions should be covered. Indexing protects institutions from being swept into supervision solely because of nominal GDP growth, but it also removes a lever by which Congress can expand the supervisory perimeter without new legislative action — effectively delegating a politically sensitive scope decision to technical GDP calculations and agency implementation.
The bill solves the familiar problem that fixed nominal dollar thresholds drift into broader coverage as the economy grows, but it introduces a few knotty implementation issues. First, the indexing formula uses current‑dollar GDP (a nominal measure) and a hard baseline year tied to April 1, 2026; because GDP estimates are revised and published annually, agencies will need clear governance about when to lock values and how to treat revisions.
Second, the statute requires agencies to ‘‘seek’’ uniformity when adjusting regulatory thresholds but stops short of a binding harmonization rule; agencies regulate different entities for different purposes, so identical numeric cutoffs may not be appropriate and could produce inconsistent outcomes despite the stated goal.
There are also questions about administrative procedure and discretion. The bill instructs agencies to modify thresholds identified in their regulatory review, but it does not explicitly exempt any such modifications from notice‑and‑comment rulemaking or state whether minor numeric updates qualify for a narrower process.
That ambiguity will shape the timing and legal defensibility of agency actions. Finally, the rounding rules mandate upward step changes (nearest $50B or $5B); rounded increases could produce abrupt jumps in coverage that matter materially for institutions sitting near thresholds and can create cliff effects on the dates the changes become effective.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.