US Comptroller Gould Abstains from FDIC Vote on Resolution Plans
In a surprising move, US Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould abstained from a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) vote on staff feedback relating to the July 2025 Dodd-Frank Act Section 165(d) resolution plans. The FDIC and the Federal Reserve Board published feedback letters covering several resolution plans filed in July 2025.
The Importance of Resolution Plans
Resolution plans, frequently referred to as living wills, play a crucial role in the financial sector. They outline how a banking organization would handle a severe financial crisis or potential failure in an orderly manner. These plans are particularly critical for the largest and most complex domestic and foreign banking organizations.
In 2025, eight of the largest domestic banks and 56 foreign banking organizations submitted their resolution plans. The FDIC and the Federal Reserve conducted a joint assessment of these submissions.
Feedback on the Resolution Plans
Both the Federal Reserve and FDIC found no significant issues with the submitted plans. According to their feedback, all previously identified concerns have been successfully addressed in the latest submissions. However, the Comptroller of the Currency, Jonathan V. Gould, abstained from the FDIC vote on the resolution plan feedback.
Gould stated that he abstained from voting because he believes there are fundamental issues with the current resolution planning processes that continue to be unaddressed. In his view, the feedback letters perpetuate a flawed and extralegal process.
Concerns Raised by Gould
Gould has previously voiced legal and conceptual objections to resolution planning at both the bank and holding-company tiers. He believes that the FDIC’s requirements for insured depository institution (CIDI) resolution plans need to be revised.
While work is underway to change the FDIC’s requirements for CIDI resolution plans, Gould stated that Section 165(d) plans have not yet been the focus. This context informed his decision to abstain from the vote.
Gould expressed concerns about the shifting process of resolution planning. He noted that the process has evolved from planning, to planning plus capabilities, to planning plus capabilities plus assurance of capabilities. He expressed doubts over the continual increase of requirements through feedback letters.
Contingency Strategies and Assurance Framework
Gould also voiced concerns over “contingency strategies.” According to him, the proposed letters outline approaches for maintaining critical operations through a range of alternative resolution scenarios when financial resources are significantly lower than the execution needs after the Covered Company files for bankruptcy.
He also noted that in 2024, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC informed US GSIBs that they expect an “assurance framework” for resolution capabilities, made up of at least five elements listed in those letters.
Despite his legal and policy concerns with the capital and liquidity requirements for resolution planning, Gould believes that imposing more planning and other requirements on firms is not the answer.
In conclusion, Gould emphasized that the failure of a GSIB will not go according to a resolution plan. However, the letters do not specify the review boundaries or the intended focus for next year’s submissions, though it appears to suggest further “capabilities” testing.
The full details of the feedback and Gould’s stance can be accessed here.
