Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,553 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,242,427
Pageviews Today: 2,340,662Threads Today: 877Posts Today: 16,660
09:04 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Glass-Steagall Act...should it be reinstated?

 
Lawman
User ID: 205690
United States
04/18/2008 09:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Glass-Steagall Act...should it be reinstated?
Glass-Steagall Act
An act passed by Congress in 1933 that prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities.

Basically the Glass-Steagall Act was enacted during the Great Depression. It protected bank depositors from the additional risks associated with security transactions. The act was dismantled in 1999 (on November 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933). Consequently, the distinction between commercial banks and brokerage firms has blurred; many banks own brokerage firms and provide investment services.

NOTE:
Several economists and analysts have criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.

COMPLETE DETAILS:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Do you think the Glass-Steagall Act should be reinstated, now that we see things unfolding?
Lawman (OP)
User ID: 205690
United States
04/18/2008 09:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Glass-Steagall Act...should it be reinstated?
There already has been some writing regarding the Act (albiet before 2008):
[link to www.marketwatch.com]

THOMAS KOSTIGEN'S ETHICS MONITOR
Regulation game
Would Glass-Steagall save the day from credit woes?

By Thomas Kostigen, MarketWatch
Last update: 12:03 a.m. EDT Sept. 7, 2007

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- Time was when banks and brokerages were separate entities, banned from uniting for fear of conflicts of interest, a financial meltdown, a monopoly on the markets, all of these things.

In 1999, the law banning brokerages and banks from marrying one another -- the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 -- was lifted, and voila, the financial supermarket has grown to be the places we know as Citigroup, UBS, Deutsche Bank, et al.
But now that banks seemingly have stumbled over their bad mortgages, it's worth asking whether the fallout would be wreaking so much havoc on the rest of the financial markets had Glass-Steagall been kept in place.

Diversity has always been the pathway to lowering risk. And Glass-Steagall kept diversity in place by separating the financial powers that be: banks and brokerages.

Glass-Steagall was passed by Congress to prohibit banks from owning full-service brokerage firms and vice versa so investment banking activities, such as underwriting corporate or municipal securities, couldn't be called into question and also to insulate bank depositors from the risks of a stock market collapse such as the one that precipitated the Great Depression.

But as banks increasingly encroached upon the securities business by offering discount trades and mutual funds, the securities industry cried foul. So in that telling year of 1999, the prohibition ended and financial giants swooped in. Citigroup led the way and others followed. We saw Smith Barney, Salomon Brothers, PaineWebber and lots of other well-known brokerage brands gobbled up.

At brokerage firms there are supposed to be Chinese walls that separate investment banking from trading and research activities. These separations are supposed to prevent dealmakers from pressuring their colleague analysts to give better results to clients, all in the name of increasing their mutual bottom line.

Well, we saw how well these walls held up during the heyday of the dot-com era when ridiculously high estimates were placed on corporations that happened to be underwritten by the same firm that was also trading its securities. When these walls were placed within their new bank homes, cracks appeared and -- it looks ever so apparent -- ignored.

No one really questioned the new fad of collateralizing bank mortgage debt into different types of financial instruments and selling them through a different arm of the same institution. They are now.

Enforcing separation
I'm not saying that Glass-Steagall would have made a difference to the evolution of the collateralized debt obligations. But it might have helped identify and isolated the damage.

When banks are being scrutinized and subject to due diligence by third-party securities analysts more questions are raised than when the scrutiny is by people who share the same cafeteria. Besides, fees, deals and the like would all be subject to salesmanship, which means people would be hammering prices and questioning things much more to increase their own profit -- not working together to increase their shared bonus pool.

Glass-Steagall would have at least provided what the first of its names portends: transparency. And that is best accomplished when outsiders are peering in. When every one is on the inside looking out, they have the same view. That isn't good because then you can't see things coming (or falling) and everyone is subject to the roof caving in.
Congress is now investigating the subprime mortgage debacle. Lawmakers are looking at tightening lending rules, holding secondary debt buyers responsible for abusive practices and, on a positive note, even bailing out some homeowners.

These are Band-Aid measures, however, that won't patch what's broken: the system of conflicts that arise when sellers, salesmen and evaluators are all on the same team.
Glass-Steagall forced separation. Something like it, where conflicts and losses can be mitigated, should be considered again.
Lawman (OP)
User ID: 205690
United States
04/18/2008 09:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Glass-Steagall Act...should it be reinstated?
Some interesting comments left about that story:

"The article fails to recognize that major investment banks - e.g. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, etc. are big originators of asset-backed securities and standalone investment funds. The passage of legislation restoring Glass Steagall wouldn't affect their capacity to continue doing what they are presently engaged in. It is the commercial banks who were the primary beneficiaries of the repeal of Glass Steagall."

And,

"The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was put into place because it was believed that the de-regulation of the 1920s and 1930s were a cause of the stock market collapse and the depression. Seventy years later we are at a similar situation. A period of deregulation, high stock valuations, retiring boomers - and where's the stock market headed?"
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 418622
United States
04/18/2008 12:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Glass-Steagall Act...should it be reinstated?
Here's a better idea. The banks and investment firms should be nationalised.
Watcher
User ID: 404251
United States
04/18/2008 10:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Glass-Steagall Act...should it be reinstated?
Here's a better idea. The banks and investment firms should be nationalised.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 418622


Humm...that's good. I have a better idea. String up all those responsible for the chaos it is causing everyone else who had no idea they were getting the shaft?





GLP