The news
On September 29, 2026, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) told American Express (AXP) that its American Express resolution plan faces "significant uncertainty" about feasibility. Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould voted against the letter.
Resolution plans, known as living wills, describe how a large banking organization could be wound down in bankruptcy without serious harm to US financial stability, as required by section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. On the same day, the Fed and FDIC published feedback for 15 banking organizations that filed plans in October 2025, including American Express, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank and UBS. The agencies said they found no shortcomings or deficiencies in any of them.
The Amex letter still carries a warning. The company's preferred approach, which it calls the Coordinated Sale Strategy, relies on a single buyer purchasing the assets of three entities together: American Express National Bank, the operating holding company Travel Related Services and the parent company. According to the letter, Travel Related Services owns most of the franchise value, including the card network, trademarks and systems. Under the plan, the parent and Travel Related Services would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy while the FDIC ran the bank through a temporary bridge bank, keeping the payments platform intact for one buyer.
The agencies said that coordination may not work. The bank and the holding companies would sit in two separate proceedings with different timelines, legal mandates and decision-makers, and the FDIC generally must choose the least costly option, which may not match the winning bidder in bankruptcy court. The letter adds that the FDIC generally does not share bidder information or accept contingent bids. It tells American Express to review its preferred strategy for its next plan and, if it finds no workable fix, to consider a different one. The letter also credited the 2025 plan with meaningful improvements over earlier submissions.
Gould explained his vote in a statement for the FDIC board meeting, where the Comptroller holds a seat. He said it was the first time he had voted against a resolution plan feedback letter, and that he voted for the other letters because they did not impose new expectations. He argued that the Amex feedback, although not labeled a shortcoming, works as a demand to rethink a core part of the plan without explaining the consequences of ignoring it.
Gould said the realistic alternatives would be a large restructuring to look more like other big regional banks or a single point of entry strategy, in which only the parent company enters resolution, as the largest US banks plan to do. He called both options costly and inappropriate for the company, and said he doubts its failure would, absent other extraordinary events, seriously harm US financial stability. At a minimum, he said, the agencies should revise their joint rule so resolution planning does not apply to companies below the $250 billion statutory threshold.
The numbers
- Banking organizations that received feedback
- 15
- Formal shortcomings or deficiencies found
- 0
- Amex's next (targeted) plan due
- On or before July 1, 2028
- Statutory threshold Gould cited
- $250 billion in total consolidated assets
Why CEOs should care
For boards and CFOs at large banks and card companies, the Amex letter shows that feedback outside the formal shortcoming and deficiency categories can still point at a firm's core strategy. Ask whether your own preferred strategy depends on the FDIC and a bankruptcy court reaching the same result, and what it would cost to change course, including any new debt, capital or legal-entity work a single point of entry approach might require.
For fintech partners, merchants and corporate card buyers, nothing in the letter points to financial stress: living wills are hypothetical exercises, and the agencies noted Amex's improvements. What it does show is where regulators see friction in keeping an integrated network, bank and brand together in a crisis. Vendor-risk teams that treat a single card network as critical infrastructure can use the letter to review their own continuity assumptions.
For compliance and government-affairs teams, a public split between the Comptroller and his fellow regulators signals that living-will rules may be revisited. Track whether the agencies move to narrow the rule's scope, as Gould urged, and budget for either outcome: lighter requirements for firms under $250 billion, or continued pressure to simplify structures.
The bigger picture
Gould has criticized the process before. In his statement he pointed to a May 22, 2026 statement explaining his abstention from an FDIC vote on feedback to the largest US banks, and to January 2026 remarks to the American Bar Association. He also cited a proposal under the previous administration that would have pushed regional banks toward the single point of entry model through long-term debt requirements, which he described as an effort to lower the bar for systemic importance.
The same September 29 release showed the agencies closing out older issues: they said BNP Paribas had satisfactorily addressed a shortcoming identified in its 2021 plan. The overall picture is a lighter-touch review, with a notable dispute over how far regulators should push a card-centered company to restructure.
What’s next
American Express must file a targeted plan on or before July 1, 2028, and the agencies may specify information it must include no less than 12 months before that date. Watch for any move to revise the joint resolution plan rule, and for how American Express responds to the request to rethink its Coordinated Sale Strategy.
What “Fact-checked” means
Fact-checking means testing a story’s facts against the evidence before it is published. This story went through at least two separate checks before this version was published.
- What we checked
- Its names, figures, dates, job titles, quotes and who said what were checked against the story’s sources, including its main source where it could be opened. The headline was checked for accuracy and overstatement.
- How
- A first check reviewed the whole story. If it passed, a second, skeptical check went back to the sources to look for mistakes in the most important facts. If a check flagged the story, it was edited to fix the problems found, and a separate re-check then reviewed the whole story again.
- Who
- The checks are made by our newsroom, as steps kept separate from the writing, under rules set by our editor, Hussein Mukhtar. A story the checks still flag is held for the editor, who decides whether it is fixed, published or dropped.
- If something is wrong
- “Fact-checked” does not mean error-free. If a material error is found after publication, we correct the story and add a note saying what changed. Report an error
