HB3379, the HUMPS Act of 2025, would direct the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council to recommend changes to the CAMELS bank-rating system and require the federal banking regulators to issue implementing rules within 12 months of those recommendations. The bill’s stated purpose is to make CAMELS ratings more objective, transparent, and consistent by establishing clearer criteria for each component, revising how composite ratings are calculated, and limiting subjective examiner judgment. It also specifically directs regulators to either eliminate the management component or narrow it to objective measures of governance and controls.
The bill further requires that composite ratings account for compliance with anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorist-financing laws, and it preserves regulators’ authority to take supervisory or enforcement action for safety and soundness. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act’s “well managed” definition to conform to the revised CAMELS framework. In practical terms, the bill would affect federal banking agencies, banks and bank holding companies, and the supervisory standards used in merger, acquisition, and deposit insurance contexts.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Act of 1978 and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, requiring federal financial regulators to revise the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System and the CAMELS framework through rulemaking. It would likely change how banks are evaluated for supervisory purposes, potentially affecting ratings, merger approvals, deposit insurance premiums, and other regulatory determinations tied to CAMELS or “well managed” status. The bill does not eliminate supervisory enforcement powers, but it would constrain the rating methodology toward objective, published criteria.
Sentiment
The bill appears to reflect a reform-oriented, deregulatory sentiment focused on reducing subjectivity in bank supervision and increasing transparency and accountability. The findings section frames the current system as inconsistent and overly dependent on examiner judgment, suggesting support for a more standardized approach. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of broader debate or bipartisan support in the available materials, but the reported amendment indicates the bill advanced through committee with some modification.
Contention
The main point of contention is the treatment of the CAMELS “management” component. Supporters of the bill appear to view that component as too subjective and want it eliminated or narrowed to objective governance and control measures, while opponents would likely argue that management quality is an important part of assessing bank safety and soundness and should remain part of supervision. Another likely area of debate is whether requiring objective criteria and transparent methodology could reduce examiner discretion and weaken regulators’ ability to respond to institution-specific risks, even though the bill expressly preserves enforcement authority.