i just want to -- you and i talked i think last year about f fsoc. that was a new agency just created last year. one of my concerns has always been the transparency involved in the designation. i think as a reform, to say if there's systemically important financial institutions and they're designated as such, they have additional burdens, et cetera. it seemed initially that the goal was to designate institutions as opposed to mitigate the risk involved with institutions. i guess my first question, would you agree with me that it would be more important to mitigate the risk to our system than simply -- you ought to judge the success by the mitigation risk as opposed to the number of designations that is made. >> i think you want to basically look at the most meaningful metric. basically the mission of fsoc is to identify and address risks to financial stability and the financial system that are found. one tool obviously the designation tool. >> can i ask you on the designation, there's some question -- sometimes it seems like the big banks all got des

the mission of fsoc is to identify and address the risk to the financial stability.tion to a it seems like sometimes the big banks all got designated. is that based on the size or based on the activity. >> it is a size designation for them but if you look at the number of designations certainly outside of the banking context there would be that many but i think that your point is very well taken nevertheless and i think fsoc is sensitive to that the way that im and other members are which is to be as transparent as one can be in the particular factors that may have driven a particular decision to designate and now as we discussed before but is often a business model not considered under the analysis as systemically important that the more that one can advise is what the factors are not to have the systemic risk in the system, so whatever tools were information fsoc and others can give to bring that about. no one on the committee after discussing some people call it the de- risk to the insurance companies. it doesn't include them designating that it gave them the oppo

fsoc the computer because i know that they know how to. and i will follow-up with something of bishops said there were questions recently if there was enough information. the letters have been sent asking if the act is required to disclosure of more information. do you think more needs to be dead in this area? said what type of tie line is that sec looking at? >> spoke of this in late kediri where basically i share the concerns to require companies to have a diversity policy to say that how do they monitor for effectiveness but there is a gao study that shows in the space so one of the things that is urged or included is race and gender with the other skill -- skills sets to figure into diversity so i have directed the corporation to look at the disclosures over time with concerns that we need to provide more information to make useful with information about gender a andrea's ian ethnicity. for those board members that we should proceed in reaching that conclusion on my part of november is coming soon i want to thank you. i want to ask a p

can you tell me how fsoc is addressing the differences that exist on of fsoc wide basis to ensure federal agency members are properly safeguarded information? >> i think each of the regulators has an obligation to protect information that's within their area. want the challenges we have is that to do the systemic review that fsoc is charged with requires sharing information in an appropriate way. what we do is we limit the data and we make it so that each of the parties can be certain that they are complying with the responsibilities that they have to protect -- >> to that end would you provide our committee with a brief policy and procedures outline, what fsoc regulars are doing? >> i'm happy to follow-up afterwards and find out exactly what you're looking for. >> can you commit to something abiding commit to something about it too shows what the policies and procedures are for regulators? >> i'm not sure that i'm the right one to address each of the regulators. >> as chairman of fsoc -- >> let me follow up with you. each regulator speaks to its own statutory requirement. >> i appreciate

fsoc is to identify and address risks to financial stability is better found. one tool is obviously the designation tool. is that based on their size or based on their activity. hispanic it is before my time but it defies designation for them. it's outside of the banking context. it's been well taken nonetheless into fsoc is sensitive to that and other members are, too which is to be as transparent as one can be in the particular factors i think that is often a business model. so it's not like you can change this piece and you wouldn't be considered under the analysis that it's systemically important that the more that one can advise as to what the factors are it's not to have the systemic system. so whatever tools or information fsoc and others can give to bring that about is what they should be doing. >> last year and the full committee there is an amendment i want to be sure everybody on the committee got to look at and discuss. some people call it off ramp, particularly the asset manager companies. it didn't preclude fsoc from designating them but they gave

the fsoc. >> as chairman of fsoc -- >> let me follow up with you. >> i appreciate your willingness tollow up. if we could put up a slide, it brings up an another concern that i want to echo that some of my colleagues have brought up already and that's document production. i have a slide here that shows the financial services committee requested information from treasury on the plan to renovate the leased office building. obviously, four different letters. 288 days have passed since we've heard from this matter going back to june 9th of 2015. second example, thursday, september 17th, 2015, about six months ago almost to the day, i or undersecretary nathan sheets came to testify. i permly submitted questions for the record. that was six months ago. i still have not received a response. i have those items here. can i ask when i can expect to get a response and why the delay? >> congressman, i'm happy to take that back. there was a june 9th letter i understand requesting information and august 25th response where treasury informed the committee that the report for the inspector general fo

it's not an fsoc responsibility. when i looked back at the federal agencies that report directly, i was struck that it was not in my purview to go into the independent. >> the eu's call for evidence asks for real analysis regarding the cumulative impact of regulations including regulations that have yet to be implemented. how have you all looked at future regulations such as basel 4.0 and the fundamental review of the trading book and how these fit in with our current structure. >> our view is we always need to be looking at the risks of the future, not the past. we have to make sure that our financial regulatory system doesn't become out of date. and we do that domestically. we do that internationally as we participate in various multilateral bodies. >> i think i've run out of time. i yield back. >> the time of the gentle lady has expired. the chair now recognizes gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and mr. secretary, thanks for your testimony today. i wanted to follow-up the questions from my colle

made an argument that the structure of the financial , onelity oversight council of his arguments was fsocnot independent enough. we will know more once we see the opinion. where he did get some traction is the fsoc did not properly assess metlife's on our ability. -- vulnerability. david: still ahead, commodity . more "bloomberg markets" after the break. ♪ oh, hi! micky dolenz of the monkees here, getting ready to host the flower power cruise. (announcer) we're taking the love generation to the high seas and reliving the '60s. we'll celebrate that unbelievable era with the music that made it so special. there'll be over 40 live performances featuring eric burdon & the animals, micky dolenz, the monkees lead singer and cruise host, the 5th dimension, the lovin' spoonful, rare earth, spencer davis, three dog night, and many more! imagine enjoying all that great music on the fabulous celebrity summit, leaving fort lauderdale and making ports of call in jamaica and the bahamas. you'll be back in the days of bellbottoms, peace signs, and so much more, with special theme parties and 20 fun-fill

it's not an fsoc responsibility. when i did a look back of the agencies that report directly, i was struck it was not in my per view to go into the independent agencies. the other process is the right way to do it. >> it calls for real analysis of the cumulative impact of regulations including that have yet to be implemented. how have you all looked at future regulations, such as basil 4.0 and the fundamental review of the trading book and how these fit in with our current structure? >> you know, our view is that we always need to be looking at the risks of the future, not the past. we have to make sure that our financial regulatory system doesn't become out of date. and we do that domestically. we do that internationally, as we participate in various multilateral body's i i think i have run out of time. >> time of the gentle lady expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr. >> thank you. mr. secretary, thank you for your testimony today. i wanted to follow up, the questions from my colleague

chair of the sec you're also a member of the financial stability oversight council, the so-called fsocnd i know we discussed this last year for the designation process for the systemically important financial institutions sifis still is a concern for me. also since the measures since we last spoke i not sure they go far enough in addition i still believe the current designation process is not flexible enough. entities should be given the opportunity to address the systemic risk before being designated. fsoc's successor should be measured by how it mitigates the systemic risk and not by the number of institutions that it designates. another issue we discussed last year is liquidity in the markets especially the fixed income markets. as i'm sure you know the fiscal year 2016 on the best required dera to report back within one year of enactment or the combined impact of the rule and other regulations that impact what we have on access to capital for consumers and investors and market liquidity. i continue to have concerns that the cumulative effect of the regulations have adversely impact

president believes strongly in that principle and, you know, that's why wall street reform created the fsoc in the first place and it's taking a look at the systemically important financial institutions, so this principle is one the president believes in and obvious one and based on the experience that we all went through in the mist of the financial crisis in 2008 and it's why the president worked so hard to pass legislation to address it. let me say one other thing andly let you follow up, many of the critics warned that passing wall street reform that would give regulators additional authority including around bank institutions, that passing these kinds of regulations would be overly burdensome and that they would throw a cold wet blank over innovation and the dynamism. they were wrong. we can evaluate this and look at the numbers and see -- this would sound familiar to you, every month since president obama has signed into law the wall street reform bill, our economy has created private-sector jobs. every single month. we have seen the growth in the stock market be rather dramatic over

when we sat down and visited you'd expressed that you hadn't really talked about this in terms of the fsoc. in fact, when we reviewed the minutes from 2010 to 2014, it had not been raised once. what is the threshold that has to be passed? what metrics have to be in place for to have those conversations take place at your level? >> look, i have had conversations with all of the prudential regulators about the need to use the flexibility that they have to not have a one size fits all approach. they need to keep looking at what can they do to provide the kind of proper accommodation to small institutions that don't present the kinds of risks that some of the larger ones do. when we talk about small institutions, we're not always talking about the same thing. i mean, the real community banks are quite small. you know, even the $50 billion threshold that's now in place for, you know, sifi, is way bigger than your typical community bank. when the people raise questions of institutions of hundreds of billions of dollars, we're not talking about community banks anymore. >> but unfortunately as cha