New BANK Act Mandates Federal Regulators Report Card on Charter Approval Times and Denials

If you’ve ever filled out a massive application for a loan or a new account, you know the waiting game can be the worst part. Now, imagine that application is for a brand-new bank or credit union. The New BANK Act of 2025 doesn't change any of the rules for starting a financial institution, but it does mandate that federal regulators start keeping score—and publish the results.

The Bureaucracy Report Card

This bill is all about transparency and data. It requires four major financial regulators—the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Federal Reserve (Fed), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)—to release detailed annual reports on applications they receive. Think of it as a mandatory public efficiency review. For example, the OCC, which handles national bank charters, must report the total number of applications received, approved, denied, or withdrawn (SEC. 2).

What’s especially useful for anyone thinking about starting a new financial venture is that the agencies must publish the mean and median time it took to grant approvals. If you’re a small business owner considering a new community bank, knowing that the average charter application takes 18 months versus 36 months is critical for planning. The bill also forces regulators to list the “common reasons” applications were denied or withdrawn (SEC. 2, SEC. 3, SEC. 4, SEC. 5). This data, currently often opaque, could act as a public checklist for future applicants, saving them time and money.

Why Data on Banks Matters to You

While this bill seems highly technical, it has a real-world impact on competition and access. When it’s faster and clearer to start a new bank or credit union, it encourages more players in the market. More competition often translates into better rates, lower fees, and more tailored services for consumers and small businesses. If the data shows that charter applications consistently stall out for the same reason—say, a lack of clear capital plans—it signals where the regulatory process is bottlenecked, which can then be addressed.

Section 6 goes a step further by requiring federal regulators to work with state regulators to publish data on state bank and credit union charter applications. This joint report must break down approval times and denial reasons by state. This is a massive undertaking, given the variety of state laws, but it will provide the first clear national picture of regulatory speed. If you live in a state where charter approval takes twice as long as the national median, this report will make that fact public, potentially pressuring state regulators to streamline their processes.

The Cost of Transparency

This bill is purely administrative, meaning it doesn't change how banks operate, only how regulators report on their own work. The main challenge lies in the sheer administrative burden it places on the federal agencies. Compiling detailed metrics—total applications, mean and median approval times, and common denial reasons—across four separate agencies, plus coordinating with dozens of state regulators, requires significant time and resources. While the goal of transparency is laudable, regulators will have to dedicate staff and budget to this extensive reporting, which could potentially divert resources from their core duties of supervision and consumer protection. Ultimately, the New BANK Act is a win for public accountability, providing the data needed to evaluate whether the financial regulatory system is working efficiently or just spinning its wheels.