The GSIB Act of 2026 adds a new Section 15 to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 requiring every global systemically important bank holding company (GSIB) to deliver an annual report to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The statute prescribes extensive, itemized content ranging from organizational charts and branch distributions to trading-desk metrics, enforcement histories (including counts of harmed parties), compensation deciles, diversity practices, climate finance exposures, use of forced arbitration, artificial intelligence risk controls, merger effects, and a 10‑year comparison of trends.
The law also directs the Fed to post these reports publicly. For large, internationally active bank holding companies this creates a recurring and broad data-collection obligation with implications for supervisory oversight, market transparency, litigation and compliance costs, and potential operational and reputational exposure for proprietary activities and sensitive business practices.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends the Bank Holding Company Act to require GSIBs to file a detailed annual report to the Federal Reserve covering the prior year’s activities and next year objectives. The statute enumerates specific topics the report must cover, and requires the Federal Reserve to make the filings available to the public via its website.
Who It Affects
Global systemically important bank holding companies (as defined in current Fed regulations) and their depository subsidiaries, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (which must collect and publish the filings), and downstream stakeholders who will use the data — including investors, community groups, and other supervisors.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a single, statute‑based vehicle to compel standardized, granular disclosures from the largest U.S. banks across governance, conduct, market, labor, climate and technology domains. That standardized dataset could change supervisory priorities, public scrutiny, merger reviews, and how markets assess GSIB risk — while imposing significant collection, legal and operational burdens on banks.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute inserts a new Section 15 into the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. It obligates each entity already designated a global systemically important bank holding company under existing federal regulation to prepare and deliver an annual narrative and data report to the Board.
The required report must describe the company’s activities during the prior year and state objectives for the upcoming year.
Rather than broad categorical descriptions, the law lists discrete items the report must contain. Those items include a full listing of subsidiaries and their business-line relationships, branch counts and geographic distribution for each banking subsidiary, detailed histories of enforcement actions and quantified counts of affected consumers, employees or investors, and the number of employees terminated for misconduct (flagging whether they were executives).
The statute also compels granular disclosures about capital markets operations and trading desks, mandating desk-level inventories and statistics, attribution of trading profit and loss (with breakdowns between fees/commissions/spreads and other sources), and an explanation of how each desk complies with the Volcker Rule and related compensation design.On workforce and governance, the bill requires decile-by-decile compensation figures, median-to-CEO pay comparisons, clawback descriptions, minimum-wage details including how many employees receive it, board and senior-executive diversity metrics, and counts and resolutions of internal whistleblower complaints. It also requires the company to disclose use of forced arbitration clauses, investments in minority and community depository institutions, and any merger- or acquisition-related branch closures and market-concentration changes.
The statute extends reporting into nonfinancial risk domains: climate and “financed emissions” targets and offsets; actions related to projects that disproportionately harm Indigenous or minority communities; and use, testing, and risk mitigation of artificial intelligence systems used in bank activities. Finally, companies must compare their responses across most of these items to the prior ten years.The Board is directed to make these reports publicly available on its website.
The statute references the current regulatory definition of a GSIB in 12 C.F.R. 217.402; it does not in itself create a new GSIB designation framework. The bill does not specify a filing date or a Fed-prescribed format, nor does it set civil penalties within the text; implementation details would therefore fall to the Board’s administrative process unless addressed elsewhere in law or regulation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new Section 15 to the Bank Holding Company Act requiring annual reports from every GSIB, and it requires the Federal Reserve to post the reports publicly.
Reporting must include trading-desk level data: each desk’s instruments, and for a quarterly period six months before the report date the average and standard deviation of inventory metrics for long securities, short securities, and derivatives.
Firms must disclose enforcement actions (including consent orders and settlements) and—for each—provide the total number of consumers, employees, or investors harmed by the underlying conduct.
The statute requires granular workforce and pay information: average compensation by decile, base versus incentive pay breakdowns with qualifying metrics, CEO-to-median employee pay comparisons, minimum‑wage counts, and executive clawback policies.
Reports must describe climate and environmental exposures, including financed-emissions targets, reliance on offsets, financing of fossil fuel expansion, and a projected solvency/operational impact under a 3°C+ warming scenario.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — GSIB Act of 2026
This brief provision gives the bill its official name: the Greater Supervision In Banking Act of 2026 (GSIB Act of 2026). It has no operative effect beyond naming but signals the bill’s aim to expand supervisory visibility over GSIBs.
Annual reporting obligation
Creates the core duty: each GSIB must issue an annual report to the Board describing prior-year activity and next-year objectives. Practically, this imposes a recurring compliance program on GSIBs to collect, validate, and present a broad range of operational, governance, conduct and risk metrics in a single document.
Structure and retail footprint disclosures
Requires firms to identify size and complexity by listing subsidiaries and mapping them to business lines, and to report branch counts and geographic distribution for each depository subsidiary. Those specifics make it easier for supervisors and the public to assess concentration, regional access to banking services, and potential resolution complexity.
Enforcement, misconduct, and trading desk transparency
Mandates disclosure of enforcement actions (including labor and health/safety violations), counts of harmed parties per action, numbers of employees dismissed for misconduct (flagging executives), and a very granular set of capital-markets disclosures. The trading-desk requirements include desk identification, instruments traded, inventory statistics over a defined quarterly period, profit-and-loss attribution, and a description of how desks comply with the Volcker Rule. This package probes both legal compliance and proprietary-market activity and could surface sensitive competitive information.
Labor, compensation, arbitration, and governance
Calls for disclosure of forced arbitration clauses across counterparty types, compensation and clawback policies, decile pay data (with base versus incentive splits), CEO-to-median pay comparisons, minimum-wage counts, and board/senior-executive diversity metrics. These items serve both public-interest aims (worker treatment, diversity) and enable quantitative assessment of incentive structures that may drive risk-taking.
Whistleblowers, climate, environmental justice, and AI
Requires counts and disposition of internal whistleblower/ethics complaints, detailed financed-emissions targets and offset reliance, financing of fossil-fuel expansion and projected solvency impacts under warming scenarios, disclosures on financing tied to projects affecting Indigenous or minority communities, and an account of AI investments with risk-identification and mitigation practices (e.g., predeployment testing, red teaming). This blends traditional financial supervision with nonfinancial systemic-risk and conduct issues.
Mergers, historical comparisons, public posting, and definition
Requires post-merger descriptions (branch closings, HHI changes, deposit-share shifts, approvals and conditions), a 10-year comparison across many reporting items, and directs the Board to publish reports on its website. The section relies on the Fed’s existing regulatory definition of GSIB and does not create new supervisory categories, but it does convert a wide set of supervisory information into publicly accessible material.
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
- Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve — gains a statute-backed, standardized dataset on GSIB structure, trading activities, enforcement history, climate exposures, AI usage, and workforce metrics to inform supervision and systemic-risk monitoring.
- Community and environmental advocacy groups — receive publicly available reporting on branch closures, financing of fossil fuel expansion, links to projects in low-income/majority-minority/Indigenous areas, and investments in minority depository institutions, enabling targeted advocacy and litigation support.
- Investors and market analysts — obtain granular trading-desk, governance and compensation information useful for risk assessment, shareholder proposals, and stewardship decisions.
- Employees and whistleblowers — benefit indirectly from mandated disclosure of whistleblower complaints, pay deciles, termination counts, and forced arbitration use, which increases transparency about workplace practices.
- State and federal enforcement agencies — gain an additional public and supervisory source of facts to prioritize investigations and coordinate enforcement actions across labor, consumer protection, environmental, and securities regimes.
Who Bears the Cost
- GSIBs and their risk/compliance teams — bear direct costs to compile, validate, and produce highly granular desk-level and workforce data, establish or expand reporting systems, and legally vet material before public release.
- Trading desks and proprietary business units — face potential competitive harm from public disclosure of desk structure, inventory volatility metrics, and profit attribution, which could reveal proprietary strategies or create front-running risks.
- Board of Governors (implementation resource burden) — must collect, host, and publish voluminous filings, develop templates and redaction protocols, and manage confidentiality/legal challenges without explicit funding in the statute.
- Shareholders and firms — may face increased litigation, regulatory scrutiny, and reputational risk from publicized enforcement counts, employee-termination data, climate exposures, or evidence of harmful practices.
- Third-party vendors and contractors — could be pulled into disclosure requirements indirectly (e.g., minimum-wage provisions for vendor employees), increasing contract review and monitoring burdens for banks and vendors alike.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is straightforward: it trades increased transparency for supervisory and public accountability against the risk that highly detailed, recurring public disclosures will expose proprietary positions, create market and operational risk, and impose significant compliance costs — especially when the statute leaves definition, timing, and confidentiality rules to administrative implementation.
The bill demands extraordinarily granular disclosures but leaves several implementation decisions to the Board. It does not specify filing dates, standardized formats, data definitions, or whether the Fed will require independent attestation or audits of reported numbers.
Those gaps create practical questions: will the Fed issue uniform templates to make datasets comparable across institutions, or will banks use divergent formats that defeat standardization? How will the Fed protect legitimately confidential trade secrets or personally identifiable information while complying with the statutory public-posting requirement?
Operationally, several mandated items raise acute tensions. Trading-desk inventory averages and standard deviations for a recent quarter could reveal short-term positioning and liquidity strategies, creating market or counterparty risk if published verbatim.
Climate and environmental disclosures could collate sensitive client and project-level information that banks have contractual or legal limits on disclosing. The law also spans multiple regulatory domains (labor, environmental, securities, financial stability) without creating a central process to resolve overlap, which could produce duplicative data requests and compliance inefficiency.
Finally, the statute specifies counts and qualitative descriptions (e.g., number harmed by enforcement actions) without defining measurement standards, inviting disputes over methodology and potential gaming of metrics or downstream legal challenges.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.