OCC 署長 Jonathan V. Gould：美國銀行業、穩定幣監理與創新新局

0:00OCC 的歷史與角色

0:00好的，Jonathan，非常感謝你今天來到這裡和我一起參與這個訪談。這一定會非常有趣。好，我們只有二十分鐘的時間，而且有很多內容要討論。在我們正式開始之前，你可以先簡單自我介紹一下嗎？也請你說明一下，對於在場可能不太熟悉「貨幣監理署長」這個職位的人，能不能跟我們聊聊你的辦公室是做什麼的？All right, Jonathan, thank you so much for joining me here. This is going to be a ton of fun. Okay, so we've only got 20 minutes and we've got a lot of ground to cover. Before we get into it, could you just do a really quick intro and background on yourself and, like, describe, you know, for folks in this room who might be not as familiar with what the Comptroller of the Currency means, talk to us about your office.

0:23OCC 是在 1863 年由林肯總統和財政部長 Salmon P. Chase 創立的。當時林肯總統一邊打內戰，一邊有遠見地思考美國經濟的長遠發展。我們的任務是促進全國市場的形成，像是信貸、房貸等，並逐步建立經濟聯盟。OCC 主要監管全美國的國家銀行，超過一千家銀行，資產規模約 18 兆美元，佔美國商業銀行體系的三分之二。我們負責發放銀行執照、監管和督導這些銀行。Sure. So the OCC was created actually in 1863 by President Lincoln, and then Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase. So as President Lincoln was obviously waging a war for our political union, he had the foresight, along with his Treasury Secretary, to think about the long-term economic union. And we were created to facilitate the rise of nationwide markets, whether credit, mortgages, etc., and to forge that economic union over time. So what the OCC does is we regulate national banks. So it's over a thousand banks, about 18 trillion in assets. It's two-thirds of the commercial banking system, and we charter these banks, we regulate them, and we supervise them.

1:08OCC 的監理哲學與科技中立

1:08我不知道為什麼我覺得這點這麼令人印象深刻——他在打內戰的同時，還能抽空去規範銀行業。對我來說，我可能就會讓這件事先擱著。當時有那麼多事情要處理，但他真的是一個非常令人敬佩的人。好，那你可以帶我們深入了解一下嗎？很明顯，在加密貨幣和銀行業的歷史中，我認為很多在加密領域的人都覺得，自己在銀行體系裡可能沒那麼受歡迎，但是——你對銀行體系以及你希望看到的改變，和你這個職位上一些前任有很不一樣的看法。所以，你能不能帶我們進一步了解一下，讓我們知道你是怎麼看待監管的，特別是從加密貨幣銀行的角度來說？I don't know why I find that so impressive that—While he was fighting a civil war, he still found time to regulate the banking industry. For me, I might have let that slide. There was a lot of stuff going on, but he's a very impressive man. Okay, so can you take us inside? So obviously, within the history of crypto and banking, I think a lot of folks in the crypto space have felt, you know, maybe a little bit less welcome in the banking system, but—You have a very different read on the banking system and the change that you want to see than some of your predecessors in this office. So, you know, take us in and give us an understanding of how you're thinking about regulation, especially from a crypto banking standpoint.

1:48好的。我們的機構已經有163年的歷史了。我們比其他聯邦銀行監管機構早成立至少半個世紀。因此，我們理所當然地可以也應該採取長遠的風險管理觀點。而且，從更廣泛的角度來看，當我思考銀行業務時，我會把它視為金融中介的過程，而我們對技術是中立的。在過去163年裡，我們已經見證了銀行市場的重大變化。作為監管機構，我們必須確保所有在法律上允許的活動或技術，都能以安全且穩健的方式進行。Sure. So my agency is 163 years old. We predate other federal banking agencies by at least a half a century. So we necessarily can and should take a long-term view of risk management. And, you know, just very broadly, when I think about the business of banking, I think about it in terms of financial intermediation, and we are technology agnostic. So we have seen over the last 163 years significant changes in banking markets. And we, as a regulator, have to ensure that activities or technologies that are legally permissible can be done in a safe and sound manner.

2:28所以，與其採取一種「嗯，你知道，這是一項在法律上允許的活動」或者「這是一項有興趣的銀行可以採用的新技術」的態度，然後把責任推給銀行，讓他們自己想辦法以安全穩健的方式來執行，從我在OCC任職以來，我們採取了不同的觀點，也就是我們需要與那些有興趣參與這些新近在法律上允許的活動，或是想要採用新技術的銀行合作，不論是分散式帳本技術還是人工智慧，我們都需要協助他們能夠參與。而且要讓他們能夠以安全穩健的方式從事在法律上允許的活動。So rather than taking an attitude of, well, you know, yes, this is a legally permissible activity, or this is a technology, a new technology that banks that are interested can embrace. And putting the onus on the banks to figure out how to do it in a safe and sound manner. Since I've been at the OCC, we've been taking a different view, which is we need to work with banks that are interested in engaging in these newly legally permissible activities or embracing new technologies, whether it be distributed ledger technology or artificial intelligence, and we need to facilitate their ability to engage. And a legally permissible activity in a safe and sound manner.

3:09所以我們再次強調，我們希望能夠減輕銀行本身的一些責任，因為作為監管機構，確保這些事情能夠以安全且穩健的方式進行，是我們的責任。So again, we want to, you know, take some of that onus off the banks themselves, since it is our responsibility as regulators to make sure that it can be done in a safe and sound manner.

3:19穩定幣監理與 GENIUS Act

3:19那麼帶我們深入了解一下，我的意思是，不需要透露任何國家機密，但銀行業在穩定幣這個議題上一直以來的討論是什麼。當我想到那些重大的變革性科技，尤其是那些可能對銀行業模式、風險以及所有相關事務產生重大影響的科技時，穩定幣似乎是一個非常巨大的躍進。銀行業對此的普遍回應是什麼？然後也請你帶我們了解一下GENIUS Act的實際執行細節，以及我們大概什麼時候可以開始期待看到一些由銀行發行的穩定幣。So take us inside, I mean, don't reveal any state secrets, but the conversations that the banks have been having around stablecoins. When I think of big transformative technologies. Especially potentially that have big implications to the model of banking and risk and all of that stuff. It seems like stablecoins are a really big step function change. What has the response generally been from the banking industry? And then take us inside, you know, the implementation details of Genius and when we can start maybe expect to see some, you know, bank-issued stablecoins.

3:50所以我大概不能帶你們太深入內部。喔，拜託，Jonathan，你現在是在朋友之間啦。來嘛。不過我可以給你們一些背景資訊。我希望這會有幫助。所以國會確實根據GENIUS Act，指派了OCC一些非常令人興奮的新責任，就是要為所謂的聯邦合格支付型穩定幣發行人以及外國發行人，起草一套監管和監督的框架。所以OCC對此感到非常興奮。這其實讓我們回想起早期的日子，當時我們的工作是確保銀行發行的票據有可靠且在不同銀行間一致的準備資產作為支撐。那是在我們有聯邦準備票據之前的事。So I probably can't take you too much inside. Oh, come on, Jonathan, you're among friends. Come on. But I can give you some background. I hope it's helpful. So Congress did assign the OCC pretty exciting new responsibilities under the Genius Act in terms of drafting a regulatory and then supervisory framework for so-called Federal qualified payment stablecoin issuers and foreign issuers. So the OCC is very excited about that. It actually harkens back to some of our earlier days, where our job was to ensure that the notes being issued by banks were backed by reserve assets that were reliable and consistent across different banks. That was before we had federal reserve notes.

4:37所以你可以把我們現在正在做的事情，以及國會根據GENIUS Act指派給我們的任務，想像成某種程度上類似於我們在大約150年前早期時期所做的事情。因此，我們對此感到非常興奮，幾週前我們提出了一套相當龐大的法規。我們認為，這是嘗試執行國會賦予我們法定任務的一個良好第一步。這目前只是一個提案。你會注意到，有些人還特地數了一下我們提出的問題數量。我想大約有211個問題。So you can think about what we're doing now and the task that Congress has assigned us under the Genius Act as somewhat similar to what we were doing, you know, 150 years ago in our earlier days. And so, again, we're very excited about that, and we have proposed about a few weeks ago a pretty voluminous set of regulations. That we believe is a good first step in terms of attempting to carry out the statutory mandate that Congress gave us. It is just a proposal. You'll note that, and some people have counted up the number of questions we asked. I think it's around 211 questions.

5:20我們這麼做，是因為我們真的希望從在座各位以及更廣泛的人群中，獲取盡可能多的意見，來幫助我們讓這個提案變得更好。我們認為這是一個在理論上站得住腳的第一步，但它僅僅是第一步，我們也明白它需要來自在座各位以及更多人的意見來完善。這就是為什麼我們會問很多問題。這也是為什麼我們會盡量讓這個提案內容更充實——就是為了激發大家的回應，讓大家能夠看出我們思考的方向。大家可以告訴我們這是個糟糕的想法，或者這是個好主意，但你們需要做哪些調整。We do that because we actually want to Extract as much input from the people in this room and beyond on how we can make our proposal better. We think it's an intellectually defensible first step, but it's just that, and we recognize it needs the benefit of input, again, from people in this room and beyond. That's why we ask a lot of questions. That's why we try to put enough kind of meat on the bones of the proposal to—To provoke responses from people so they can see kind of the direction we're thinking. They can tell us that's a terrible idea or that's a great idea, but you need to make these tweaks.

6:00我想要告訴在座各位的一件事是，請務必閱讀我們所寫的內容。我們在這上面花了很多心力。這絕對不是完美的，它需要你們的意見，所以請務必對我們所發佈的內容提出看法。So one thing I just want to tell this audience is that please do read what we wrote. We spent a lot of effort in it. It's definitely not perfect. It needs your input, and so please do weigh in on what we put out there.

6:13這大致上就是我們目前在規則制定方面的進展。你知道，我們有法定的截止期限，所以我們正盡力去達成這些期限。我們所提出的提案，並沒有涵蓋國會指派給我們的法定任務中一些非常重要的部分。這些包括像是BSAML，這顯然在公共政策上具有重大意義。我們將會和主計財政部一起合作處理這部分，我們本身就是該部門的一個局處。我認為這樣做最合理，因為金融犯罪執法網路（Financial Crimes Enforcement Network）同樣隸屬於財政部。因此，我們希望與他們合作，來解決這些在規則制定中非常重要的面向。So that's kind of where we are in the process on the rulemaking side. You know, we have statutory deadlines, so we are trying to do our best to meet those deadlines. The proposal that we did put out does not cover some very important parts of the statutory mandate that Congress assigned us. Those include things like BSAML, which is obviously of significant kind of public policy importance. We are going to work on that together with Main Treasury, of which we are a bureau. That, I think, made the most sense, given where the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network sits also within Treasury. So we wanted to partner with them to address those very important aspects of the rulemaking.

6:57所以你們應該很快就會看到我們和財政部在BSL AML方面有一些動作。而且當然，在這方面，我們非常歡迎並且需要你們給予強而有力的回饋。So you ought to see something. On the BSL AML front from us and Treasury in the not too distant future as well. And of course on that too, we would very much welcome and need your robust feedback.

7:15銀行與非銀行穩定幣監理一致性

7:15就銀行採用支付型穩定幣這一點來說，你知道，我沒辦法。我當然讀過很多不同的研究，聲稱能夠提供各種未來發展情境。我對於任何人能夠準確預測未來這件事，通常都會抱持一點懷疑。我們正在努力審慎思考我們所提出的監管與監督框架。我們當然會，而且你們也應該預期我們會，你們應該預期任何監管機構都會持續或至少定期重新評估監管框架，特別是當我們討論的是一個相對新興的市場，而至少我沒辦法以百分之百的準確度預測它會如何發展。In terms of bank adoption on payment stablecoins, I, you know, I can't. I've certainly read a lot of different studies purporting to offer a range of different scenarios going forward. I tend to be a little bit skeptical of anybody's ability to predict the future with any accuracy. We are trying to be thoughtful about the regulatory and supervisory framework that we're proposing. We will, of course, and you should expect us to, you should expect any regulator to constantly or at least periodically reassess regulatory frameworks, particularly when we're talking about a relatively nascent market, which at least I can't predict with, again, 100% accuracy how it will be evolved.

8:01我對於支付型穩定幣所帶來的機會感到非常興奮。對於各種機構來說，無論是銀行還是非銀行機構，我們在OCC要努力的一件事，就是盡我們所能確保那些從事支付型穩定幣業務的人，無論他們是以全國性銀行的架構，還是以聯邦認可的非銀行支付型穩定幣發行人架構來運作，都會受到非常相似的監管和監督框架的規範。因為我們同時監管和監督這兩種機構和兩邊的業務，我們可以確保隨著時間的推移，實現監管的一致性，確保同類型的活動能夠以相似的方式受到對待。I'm certainly excited about the opportunities that payment stablecoins do create. For a range of entities, banks and non-banks alike, one of the things that we will work on at the OCC is ensuring, to the best of our ability, that those who are engaged in payment stablecoin activities are subjected to a very similar regulatory and supervisory framework, regardless of whether they are doing it in kind of a national bank structure or doing it in a federal qualified kind of non-bank payment stablecoin issuer structure. Because we regulate and supervise kind of both sides and both entities, we can ensure convergence over time to make sure that, again, like activities are being treated in a similar fashion.

8:49話雖如此，我們確實認識到非銀行機構與銀行是不同的，這一點你們可以在我們的提案中看到。在支付型穩定幣發行人的部分，我們著重於關於準備資產、多元化、流動性要求等規範，而對於資本這類比較屬於銀行特有的特徵，我們則較少著墨。但同樣地，我們也歡迎大家針對這樣的做法是否合理提出意見，或是認為不合理，以及我們可以如何改進我們的提案。That said, we do recognize that non-banks are different from banks, and you'll note in our proposal. On payment stablecoin issuers, we have focused on requirements around reserve assets, diversification, liquidity requirements, and we place less emphasis on things like capital, which are kind of more uniquely bank-like features. But again, we invite comment on whether you think that makes sense or doesn't make sense, and how we might improve our proposal.

9:20讓我回到你一開始問的問題。我們確實看到，特別是在支付型穩定幣領域，一些大型銀行展現出興趣。這也呼應我一開始所說的內容，我認為這反映出我們機構在哲學立場和態度上的轉變，也希望隨著時間推移，這種轉變能落實到實際作為上，與我們機構過去的立場有所不同。我們希望確保，所有銀行或所有有興趣參與支付型穩定幣業務、並且屬於OCC監管範圍內的相關方，都有機會參與這項業務。And let me just go back to the, I think, the initial question you asked. I mean, we are seeing interest from particularly some of the larger banks in the payment stablecoin area. One of the things, and this goes back to what I was saying at the beginning, which again I think reflects a Shift in philosophical approach and tone, and hopefully practice over time at my agency from perhaps past stances taken by my agency. We want to make sure that all banks or all parties that are interested in engaging in payment stablecoin activities that are under OCC jurisdiction. Have an opportunity to do so.

10:00我們不希望發生的情況是——而且我在其他領域，包括其他令人興奮的新活動或新技術的應用上，一次又一次看到這種情況——只有最大型的銀行參與這些活動或從中受益，因為只有最大型的銀行擁有堅不可摧的資產負債表，或者擁有極為成熟的風險管理，讓像我這樣的監管機關感到放心，認為他們可以這麼做，對吧？What we don't want to have happen, and I've seen this time and time again in other areas, including other exciting kind of new activities or use of new technologies, where only the very largest banks engage in those activities or take advantage of them, because only the very largest banks have the fortress balance sheets. Or the extremely sophisticated risk management that makes regulators like me feel comfortable that it's okay for them to do it, right?

10:30所以我不希望看到，或者說我比較不願意創造任何會促使或產生雙層體系的誘因，也就是只有最大型的業者能夠利用某些新技術，而其他人卻無法做到，儘管他們在法律上是被允許這麼做的。去獲取這些好處。因此，我們會非常努力地確保，至少對那些想要參與的人來說，支付型穩定幣活動的好處能夠被銀行體系中儘可能廣泛的領域所認可，同時，作為監理機關，我們當然也會非常專注於降低任何潛在的負面風險。So I don't want to see a, or I prefer not to create any incentives that promote or create a two-tier system where only the largest players can take advantage of some new technology, but everybody else can't do it, even though it's legally permissible for them to do. To take advantage. So we're going to try very hard to make sure that the benefits of payment stablecoin activities, at least for those who want to participate in them, are recognized across as broad, you know, a sector of the banking system as possible, while obviously we as supervisors are very focused on mitigating any potential downside risks.

11:08創新、風險與銀行角色

11:08你知道，我很感興趣的是，跟你聊天有一件很有趣的事情，顯然你負責在金融領域，特別是銀行方面，控管風險。而且，我認為有時候，特別是在這個領域裡的人，會對創新和變革感到興奮，但可能沒有完全、全面地思考風險。而且，有一種潛在的變化，如果有些事情發展下去，你或許可以預見未來會發生。我很想描述一個情境，然後聽聽你對這件事的看法。You know, I'm interested from, you know, one of the things that's really interesting chatting with you is obviously, you know, you're charged with, you know, containing risk in the financial sector, and especially around banks. And, you know, I think people sometimes, especially in the space, get excited about innovation and changes without maybe fully holistically thinking about the risk. And, you know, one potential change. That you can maybe see coming down the road if some of this plays out. I'd love to, like, paint a scenario and then get your perspective on this.

11:38但是，你知道，也許美國金融科技（fintech）一直受到阻礙，或者無法像它想要的那樣快速發展或創新，其中一個原因就是，最終它還是必須依賴銀行來移轉資金。所以，你知道，美國幾乎所有金融科技領域的公司，其實都只是建立在銀行這一層之上的一個薄薄的應用層。我認為，你知道，我沒有任何內部消息，但從像 Stripe 這樣的公司在做的事情來看，我覺得它作為支付處理商是架在最上層，但最終還是必須依賴 ACH、電匯這些傳統的銀行系統。But, you know, one of the reasons maybe why fintech in the United States has been hampered or hasn't been able to move or innovate as fast as it might want is it still, at the end of the day, relies on banks to move money. And so, you know, you have—Almost everyone in the fintech space in the U.S. is kind of a thin layer on top of this layer of banks. And I think, you know, I have no inside information here, but, you know, looking at what a company like Stripe is doing, I think that sits on top as a payment processor, but ultimately still relies on ACH and wires and things like that.

12:10他們在說，嘿，也許如果我在自己的鏈上發行穩定幣，我其實可以做到全方位的服務。我很好奇，從某些角度來看，這對消費者來說可能很棒。這非常有創新性。你或許可以因此節省成本，像這樣的好處。但這裡面也可能存在一些風險，我不確定，可能會有一些——像是，我很好奇你會怎麼看待這件事，從你身為OCC的角度來說，如果真的出現這樣的改變，這是好事還是壞事，有什麼風險？你會怎麼思考這個問題？They're saying, hey, maybe with stablecoins in my own chain, I can actually be the full stack. And I'm curious from a, you know, in some senses that could be great for consumers. That's very innovative. You could maybe save on costs, things like this. But there maybe is some risk of, I don't know, there might be some—like, I'm curious how you might think about, you know, from your OCC hat, if there were to be a change like that, is that a good thing, bad thing, risks? How do you think about it?

12:36所以，從高層次來看，我一直擔心的一件事，也是我認為我們所做的改變所促成的結果，也就是我們這些未經選舉產生的官僚，在2008年金融危機之後，對監管和監督框架所做的調整。我擔心我們在監管和監督方面，做出了這些具有裁量權的政策選擇。而這些選擇往往讓越來越多的活動被推到銀行體系之外。你會看到我們提出的一些變革，例如關於監管資本的規定，這些規定的設計目的之一，就是讓銀行從事傳統銀行業務（例如房貸業務）時，所受到的懲罰性影響減輕。這些業務過去看似是無意間被推離或被不鼓勵在銀行體系內進行的。So, at a high level, one of the things that I have been worried about, and that I think has been encouraged by changes we made, meaning we unelected bureaucrats made post-2008 financial crisis to the regulatory and supervisory framework, I'm worried that we made these discretionary policy choices, again, around regulation and supervision. And they tended to push more and more activities outside of the banking system. You'll see changes that we have proposed, for example, on regulatory capital, which are specifically designed, among other things, to make it less punitive for banks to engage in traditional banking activities like, for example, mortgage activities, which again were seemingly unintentionally. Pushed or discouraged from being conducted in the banking system.

13:29所以我對於什麼是銀行，以及銀行作為金融中介機構能夠且可以提供哪些對社會有益的服務，持有一個比較廣泛的看法。所以我不會、你知道，如果你回顧過去五十多年美國金融服務體系的歷史，你會發現這裡面有一個很有趣的張力，就是，某項特定服務最適合由哪裡來提供？你知道，是應該由銀行體系、傳統銀行來提供？還是應該由非銀行機構來提供？So I have a broad view, again, as to what a bank is and the financial intermediation services that it is capable and can provide as a socially useful good. So I don't, you know, if you look at the history of the U.S. financial services system over the last 50-plus years, you know, there is this interesting tension between, you know, where is the best place for a particular service to be provided? You know, is it in the banking system, in traditional banks? Is it in a non-bank?

13:59你知道，我認為這在支付領域也是如此，雖然如你所說，在支付領域的情況有點不同，因為我們國家支付管道的獨特性。而且，你知道，我對這件事本身並沒有特別強烈的偏好。我認為，總體來說，讓銀行持續存在是一件本質上的好事，而我現在正在做的其中一件事，就是重新設定銀行體系的風險容忍度，我希望確保銀行能夠恢復作為金融中介的正確角色，而不是被推向越來越無關緊要的位置。You know, I think that's true in the payments space too, although as you note, it's been a little different in the payments space because of the kind of unique nature of our payments rails in this country. And, you know, I don't have a particular strong preference one way or the other. I think it is, generally speaking, an inherent good that banks remain, and part of what I am doing by resetting some of the risk tolerance in the banking system is I want to ensure that banks are restored to their proper roles as financial intermediaries and not being kind of driven into increasingly irrelevant roles.

14:44所以，你知道，很多時候，外界常常把這些東西描繪成互相排斥的框架，比如說，我們有銀行對非銀行，或者銀行對金融科技公司，或者銀行對加密貨幣。你知道，我的看法是——而且我認為過去我們也已經看到這一點被證實——隨著時間的推移，這些東西其實會逐漸融合。So, you know, a lot of the, a lot of what sometimes is, I think, portrayed as these kind of mutually exclusive frameworks of, you know, we've got banks versus non-banks, et cetera, or banks versus fintechs or banks versus crypto. You know, my suspicion, and I think we've seen this borne out in the past, is that over time these things converge, right?

15:07所以，你知道，我只是想確保銀行能夠隨著時間保持其相關性，而我能做到這一點的方法之一，就是調整適用於銀行體系的監管和監督框架，讓越來越多合法允許的活動能夠在銀行內進行，而且不會被監管機關以懲罰性的方式對待。所以，你知道，我的一般態度是讓市場決定什麼是合適的。試著制定合理的規則和監督框架，讓它們符合所呈現風險的本質。然後讓借款人、客戶和其他市場參與者來做決定。And so while, you know, I just want to make sure that banks remain relevant over time, and one of the ways that I can do that is by adjusting the regulatory and supervisory framework that applies to the banking system such that More and more activities that are legally permissible can be done in banks in ways that aren't treated in a punitive fashion by regulators. So, you know, my general attitude is let markets decide what's appropriate. Try to set rules and supervisory frameworks that make sense, that are appropriate to the nature of the risks presented. And then let borrowers, customers, and other market participants decide.

15:49銀行多元化與新型態銀行

15:49我想問你一個問題，在我們最後幾分鐘裡。Kraken，你知道，是一家一直在追求全國性銀行執照的公司，我認為它是第一家達成這一成就的加密貨幣公司。我很好奇，你剛剛提到融合這個概念，這也是這場會議的一個重要主題。我很好奇，我想問你，甚至就美國的銀行數量來說，我們現在的數量是剛好、太少，還是太多？I want to ask you about, there's been, in our closing couple of minutes here. So Kraken, you know, is a company that's been pursuing a national bank charter and I think is the first crypto company of its kind to achieve this. I'm curious, you know, you mentioned this idea of convergence, and it's a big theme of this conference in general. And I'm curious, you know, I wanted to ask you a little bit about even just from the number of banks in the U.S. We have the right number, too few, too many?

16:18然後，像是，當你看到這些也許比較不那麼傳統的機構的輪廓，比如說像Kraken這樣的公司，或者一些大型的託管機構，你覺得這是好事嗎？你希望看到更多這樣的情況嗎？你認為他們應該保持分離嗎？你怎麼看待這類型的申請？And then, like, when you see the profile of some of these maybe less traditional entities, like the Krakens of the world or some of the big custodians, is that a good thing in your mind? Do you want to see more of that? Do you think that they should remain separate? How do you view those sorts of applications?

16:33所以我認為，如果我聲稱自己有什麼看法，或者說我有資格擁有某種看法，更不用說去主導美國銀行體系的大規模結構，這會是非常自以為是的行為。不過，我確實有一個歷史上的觀點。也就是說，美國銀行體系，還有更廣泛來說，包括銀行在內的美國金融服務體系，以及美國經濟，一直以來都受益於一個既具活力又多元的銀行體系。那我所謂的「具活力」是什麼意思呢？具活力指的是我們可以看到有新銀行成立，這是一種讓銀行體系不斷更新的方式。So I think it would be horribly presumptuous of me to claim that I have a view or am entitled to a view, much less to dictate kind of the large-scale structure of the U.S. banking system. I do, however, have a view that historically. We have been well served, meaning the U.S. banking system, and I believe more broadly the U.S. financial services system, of which banks are a part, and the U.S. economy has been well served by having a both dynamic and diverse banking system. So what do I mean by that? Dynamic means a banking system in which we see new banks being formed as a way, again, to kind of refresh the banking system.

17:16因應新興或變化中的市場動態、新技術、使用者需求等等。作為銀行體系活力的一部分，我們也有銀行，如果他們有意願的話，可以進行合併、整併，隨著時間改變。我想指出的是，在過去的十八年裡，我們並沒有看到太多的活力。在銀行體系中，過去十八年我們所看到的是，資產低於十億美元的銀行，自2010年以來有一半已經消失了。這是一個驚人的數字，而且我們看到最大型的銀行變得越來越大。現在，這並不是對最大型銀行的批評。Respond to emerging or changing market dynamics, new technologies, customer needs, etc. That we also have, as part of that dynamism in the banking system, we have banks, if they so desire, merging, consolidating, changing over time. I would note that just in the past 18 years, we haven't had a lot of dynamism. In the banking system, what we've seen over the last 18 years in the banking system is half the banks with less than $1 billion in assets have been blinked out of existence since 2010. That's a stunning number, and we've seen the very largest banks get bigger and bigger and bigger. Now, that is not a criticism of the largest banks.

17:57他們只是對我們所設定的監管和監督動態及誘因做出回應而已。那麼，這其中的另一個面向就是多元性。因此，我相信，美國銀行體系擁有非常大型的銀行、專注於社區活動的非常小型銀行，以及介於兩者之間的各種銀行，這對我們是有利的。同樣地，正如我剛才提到的，過去十六年來，資產低於十億美元的銀行有一半已經消失了。這是一個不好的狀況。在過去十八年裡，我們國家幾乎沒有新銀行成立。因此，我非常專注於扭轉這些趨勢。They have just responded to the regulatory and supervisory dynamics and incentives that we have set them. So the other side of that is diversity. So I believe that we are well served in the U.S. banking system by having very large banks, very small banks focused on community activities, and everything in between. Again, that diversity of banks, as I just mentioned, we saw half of banks under $1 billion in assets blinked out of existence over the last 16 years. That's a bad situation. We've had almost no new bank formation in this country over the last 18 years. So I am very focused on undoing those trends.

18:37基本上，我所需要做的，就是按照我們既有的書面程序來進行，例如評估併購活動或新銀行的設立。並且套用國會所制定的法定因素，這些因素其實並沒有改變，只是過去並不總是被遵守，我只能這麼說。所以我們現在是回歸本源，目的是要同時保護美國銀行體系的活力與多元性。總的來說，你知道，我們會在OCC進行評估，而且我同時也是FDIC董事會成員，所以在新銀行設立方面也有一定的角色，至少是那些申請存款保險的新銀行。And largely, all I have to do to undo those trends is actually follow our written procedures as to how we evaluate, for example, M&A activity or new bank formation. And apply the statutory factors that Congress have set, which have not changed, but were not always observed, let's just say, in my opinion. And so we are reverting to form when it comes to both protecting the dynamism and the diversity of the U.S. banking system. So in general, You know, we will evaluate at the OCC, and I'm also on the FDIC board, so have a role in terms of new bank formation, at least those banks seeking deposit insurance application.

19:10你知道，我們會根據個案來評估銀行，或者更正一下，是根據個案來評估申請人，依據我們所被賦予的法定因素，以及我們自己所訂定並聲稱會適用於這個流程的書面程序。You know, we will evaluate banks on a case-by-case basis, or excuse me, applicants on a case-by-case basis, based on the statutory factors that were given and the written procedures that we ourselves say that we apply to the process.

19:32結語與感謝

19:32太棒了。好的，Jonathan，我們的時間就到這裡，不過這真是一場非常精彩的對談。非常感謝你來到現場並發表演說。非常感謝你邀請我。我真的很感激有這個機會。Amazing. Well. Jonathan, that is all the time we have, but this has been a fascinating conversation. Thank you so much for coming out and speaking. Thank you very much for having me. I really appreciate the chance.