By Melody Feinberg, ERM Part-Time Lecturer and Independent Board Member, Axiom Bank and Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York
I am a corporate director, qualified financial expert, CPA, and former chief risk officer and chief compliance officer. I serve as an independent corporate director on both a bank board and a life insurance board. With a track record of building consensus and successfully leading enterprise-wide operational and technology transformations, I help strengthen organizational agility while enabling growth and long-term value creation.
Since January 2025, I have been teaching the External Stakeholder Requirements course for the Enterprise Risk Management program. I think it is a valuable course because it provides a high-level overview of the regulations and requirements that govern the banking and insurance industries. It is a unique vantage point as I am delivering in 14 classes, which took me close to a lifetime to learn by doing.
During the first few weeks of class, we discuss the regulatory environments of the banking and insurance industries. There is one slide that I find very intriguing, it presents a scale and is labeled “Striking the Balance.” It illustrates that excessive regulation stifles growth, while insufficient regulation can lead to a decline in effectiveness.
Since early 2025, banking regulations have loosened significantly. There has been a pivot towards capital relief, pro-crypto stances, a retreat from ESG initiatives, and staff reductions at the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC. The goal is to reduce compliance costs and encourage banks to compete with the more agile worlds of private equity and fintech.
I see the merit in this reduction in the banking industry. Lower costs drive earnings and dividends, a more permissive merger environment allows new businesses to evolve, and a lighter touch allows for innovation in AI and blockchain. I have also studied the data on diminishing returns of oversight and know that more regulation does not mean more value. The bottom line is that I have always been an advocate of growth, provided it is executed safely and soundly.
However, I view this shift through a lens of healthy skepticism. Regulation means control, but a lack of regulation does not mean a lack of responsibility.
A lighter touch is only beneficial if the industry maintains its moral compass. I have always operated under the principle: What makes sense and reduces risk? Just because a regulation is removed doesn’t mean the underlying risk it was designed to mitigate has vanished. In the absence of a rule, we must still ask, should we still follow it for the health of our bank?
My view is that there is rarely one correct answer–only a series of trade-offs. The optimal level of regulation will always shift. Therefore, I suggest that you evaluate the risk-reward of your decisions and always use your moral compass as your guide. This credo should be applied in all that you do in your professional life. A shortcut may be easier in the short-term, but it may have lasting negative impacts. Regulation serves to protect, but true protection comes from internal rigor. Keep this in mind, and you will end up “doing the right thing."
Views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Columbia School of Professional Studies or Columbia University.
About the Program
The Master of Science in Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) program at Columbia University prepares graduates to inform better risk-reward decisions by providing a complete, robust, and integrated picture of both upside and downside volatility across an entire enterprise. For both the full-time and part-time options, students may take all their courses on Columbia’s New York City campus or choose the synchronous online class experience.
The application deadline for the M.S. in Enterprise Risk Management program is May 1. Learn more about the program here.
