Misplaced Pages

#369630

41-546: As with the Glass–Steagall Act of 1932 , the common name comes from the names of the Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass and Representative Henry B. Steagall . The separation of commercial and investment banking prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits and commercial Federal Reserve member banks from: Starting in the early 1960s, federal banking regulators' interpretations of

82-754: A Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) The membership of this committee will include the governors of the Federal Reserve System and five representatives of the Federal Reserve banks. The Committee meets quarterly in Washington DC. The FOMC controls how and when Reserve Banks participate in open market operations. All such decisions go through the FOMC. The Act renewed the ability of each Federal Reserve bank to make loans to its member banks. The rates for these loans must be 0.5% above

123-481: A Federal Reserve member bank could do directly and what an affiliate could do. Whereas a Federal Reserve member bank could not buy, sell, underwrite, or deal in any security except as specifically permitted by Section 16, such a bank could affiliate with a company so long as that company was not "engaged principally" in such activities. Starting in 1987, the Federal Reserve Board interpreted this to mean

164-469: A massive withdrawal of deposits of the banks took place leading to the bankruptcy of many entities. In 1933, a young prosecutor named Ferdinand Pecora , who was a member of the US Senate's Monetary and Financial Affairs Commission, interrogated several bank managers about their detestable role in the crisis. These hearings and the coming to power of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal policy gave rise to

205-513: A member bank could affiliate with a securities firm so long as that firm was not "engaged principally" in securities activities prohibited for a bank by Section 16. By the time the GLBA repealed the Glass–Steagall affiliation restrictions, the Federal Reserve Board had interpreted this "loophole" in those restrictions to mean a banking company ( Citigroup , as owner of Citibank ) could acquire one of

246-418: A shortage of “eligible paper” held by Federal Reserve banks would have required such currency to be backed by gold. The Federal Reserve Board explained that the special lending to Federal Reserve member banks permitted by the 1932 Glass–Steagall Act would only be permitted in “unusual and temporary circumstances.” The crash of 1929 evolved into a panic situation due to people losing their savings. Therefore,

287-608: A version of the Glass bill that would have required commercial banks to eliminate their securities affiliates. The final Glass–Steagall provisions contained in the 1933 Banking Act reduced from five years to one year the period in which commercial banks were required to eliminate such affiliations. Although the deposit insurance provisions of the 1933 Banking Act were very controversial, and drew veto threats from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt , President Roosevelt supported

328-519: Is no longer appropriate". Some commentators have stated that the GLBA's repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the financial crisis of 2007–2008 . Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz argued that the effect of the repeal was "indirect": "[w]hen repeal of Glass-Steagall brought investment and commercial banks together,

369-523: Is that the Glass-Steagall Act created a sense of accountability among investors within the financial management industry, encouraging them to (in effect) shy away from ultra-risky transactions that could lead to financial meltdown. It provided litigators validation involving cases against such sub-prime investment instruments on behalf of their clients who were impacted by such injustices. Without formal and defensible protection as detailed in

410-565: The Federal Reserve 's ability to offer loans to member banks (rediscounts) on more types of assets such as government bonds as well as commercial paper . The "Glass–Steagall Act" is not the official title of the law; it is a colloquialism that refers to its legislative sponsors, Carter Glass , a US Senator from Virginia and Henry B. Steagall , the Congressman from Alabama's 3rd congressional district . The official title

451-593: The Federal Reserve Act . In 1934 Jacob Viner , was an assistant to the Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. Viner chaired a committee tasked with determining what changes were needed to update the Federal Reserve Act . Marriner Stoddard Eccles became the governor of the Federal Reserve Board on November 15, 1934. He immediately dismissed the token reforms put forth by Viner and the committee. Eccles insisted that

SECTION 10

#1732780346370

492-742: The 1960s, banks and non-banks developed financial products that blurred the distinction between banking and securities products, as they increasingly competed with each other. Separately, starting in the 1980s, Congress debated bills to repeal Glass–Steagall's affiliation provisions (Sections 20 and 32). Some believe that major U.S. financial sector firms established a favorable view of deregulation in American political circles, and in using its political influence in Congress to overturn key provisions of Glass-Steagall and to dismantle other major provisions of statutes and regulations that govern financial firms and

533-483: The Act permitted commercial banks , and especially commercial bank affiliates, to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities. Congressional efforts to "repeal the Glass–Steagall Act", referring to those four provisions (and then usually to only the two provisions that restricted affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms), culminated in the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), which repealed

574-534: The Act, particularly its Glass–Steagall provisions, becoming law. While supporters of the Glass–Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking cite the Pecora Investigation as supporting that separation, Glass–Steagall critics have argued that the evidence from the Pecora Investigation did not support the separation of commercial and investment banking. This source states that Senator Glass proposed many versions of his bill to Congress known as

615-682: The Glass Bills in the two years prior to the Glass–Steagall Act being passed. It also includes how the deposit insurance provisions of the bill were very controversial at the time, which almost led to the rejection of the bill once again. The previous Glass Bills before the final revision all had similar goals and brought up the same objectives, which were to separate commercial from investment banking, bring more banking activities under Federal Reserve supervision, and to allow branch banking. In May 1933, Steagall's addition of allowing state-chartered banks to receive federal deposit insurance and shortening

656-447: The Glass-Steagall Act, investment companies felt at liberty to move toward unscrupulous investment tactics that had occurred prior to 2009 involving sub-prime mortgages. Thus a cultural shift was certainly in order after its repeal regardless of the loopholes that existed prior. Although the magnitude may be questionable, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act is considered a factor in the global financial crisis revealed in 2008. Following

697-515: The Glass–Steagall provisions separating commercial and investment banking, and Representative Steagall included those provisions in his House bill that differed from Senator Glass's Senate bill primarily in its deposit insurance provisions. Steagall insisted on protecting small banks while Glass felt that small banks were the weakness to U.S. banking. Many accounts of the Act identify the Pecora Investigation as important in leading to

738-668: The House and the Senate, and as the Secretary of the Treasury); and Representative Henry B. Steagall of Alabama, who had served in the House for the preceding 17 years. Between 1930 and 1932, Senator Carter Glass (D-VA) introduced several versions of a bill (known in each version as the Glass bill) to regulate or prohibit the combination of commercial and investment banking and to establish other reforms (except deposit insurance) similar to

779-696: The Section 21 prohibition on securities firms taking deposits, neither savings and loans nor state-chartered banks that did not belong to the Federal Reserve System were restricted by Glass–Steagall. Glass–Steagall also did not prevent securities firms from owning such institutions. S&Ls and securities firms took advantage of these loopholes starting in the 1960s to create products and affiliated companies that chipped away at commercial banks' deposit and lending businesses. While permitting affiliations between securities firms and companies other than Federal Reserve member banks, Glass–Steagall distinguished between what

820-692: The creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and its duties. The board of directors of the FDIC would include the Comptroller of Currency and two members selected by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They shall hold a term of 6 years and receive an annual salary of $ 10,000. Title I also established the maximum insured deposit to be $ 5,000. The Act of 1935 made the FDIC permanent, and included

861-464: The current discount rate at the Federal Reserve. Title III included 46 sections of technical amendments that clarified banking legislation. These included but were not limited to the rules of stock ownership, elimination of double liability, surplus requirements, rules for loans to executives, rules of branch banking, rules of securities transactions and the rights of shareholders. For a few years, there had been growing desire for changes to be made to

SECTION 20

#1732780346370

902-492: The exception of commercial banks being allowed to underwrite government-issued bonds, commercial banks could only have 10 percent of their income come from securities. It was not until 1933 that the separation of commercial banking and investment banking was considered controversial. There was a belief that the separation would lead to a healthier financial system. As time passed, however, the separation became so controversial that in 1935, Senator Glass himself attempted to "repeal"

943-490: The final provisions of the 1933 Banking Act. On June 16, 1933, President Roosevelt signed the bill into law. Glass originally introduced his banking reform bill in January 1932. It received extensive critiques and comments from bankers, economists, and the Federal Reserve Board. It passed the House on February 16, 1932, the Senate on February 19, 1932, and signed into law by President Hoover eight days later. The Senate passed

984-595: The financial crisis of 2007–2008, legislators unsuccessfully tried to reinstate Glass–Steagall Sections 20 and 32 as part of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act . Both in the United States and elsewhere around the world, banking reforms have been proposed that refer to Glass–Steagall principles. These proposals include issues of " ringfencing " commercial banking operations and narrow banking proposals that would sharply reduce

1025-587: The following provisions: Title II (in section 203 of the Act) changed the name of the "Federal Reserve Board" to the "Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System." The board consists of seven members selected by the President with advice and consent of the Senate. Each member would serve a fourteen-year term on the Board. Of those selected one member would be selected as chairman and one as vice-chairman each serving four years in that capacity. Title II also creates

1066-431: The investment-bank culture came out on top", and banks which had previously been managed conservatively turned to riskier investments to increase their returns. Another laureate, Paul Krugman , contended that the repealing of the act "was indeed a mistake"; however, it was not the cause of the financial crisis. Other commentators believed that these banking changes had no effect, and the financial crisis would have happened

1107-498: The investment-bank culture came out on top". Economists at the Federal Reserve , such as Chairman Ben Bernanke , have argued that the activities linked to the financial crisis were not prohibited (or, in most cases, even regulated) by the Glass–Steagall Act. The sponsors of both the Banking Act of 1933 and the Glass–Steagall Act of 1932 were southern Democrats : Senator Carter Glass of Virginia (who by 1932 had served in

1148-431: The law was passed on June 16, 1933, to decide whether they would be a commercial bank or an investment bank. Only 10 percent of a commercial bank's income could stem from securities. One exception to this rule was that commercial banks could underwrite government-issued bonds. There were several "loopholes" that regulators and financial firms were able to exploit during the lifetime of Glass–Steagall restrictions. Aside from

1189-534: The law. Banking Act of 1935 The Banking Act of 1935 passed on August 19, 1935, and was signed into law by the president, Franklin D. Roosevelt , on August 23. The Act changed the structure and power distribution in the Federal Reserve System that began with the Banking Act of 1933 . The Act contained three titles. Title I amended section 12B of the 1933 Act with regards to

1230-506: The permitted activities of commercial banks - institutions that provide capital liquidity to investment management firms to shore up over-inflated market valuation of securities (whether debt or equity). Reconciliation of over-committed funds is possible by filing claims to the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Company) - hence further increasing the federal budget deficit. Glass%E2%80%93Steagall Act of 1932 The first "Glass–Steagall Act"

1271-768: The prohibition on direct bank underwriting by permitting a limited amount of bank underwriting of corporate debt. In the 1960s, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued aggressive interpretations of Glass–Steagall to permit national banks to engage in certain securities activities. Although most of these interpretations were overturned by court decisions, by the late 1970s, bank regulators began issuing Glass–Steagall interpretations that were upheld by courts and that permitted banks and their affiliates to engage in an increasing variety of securities activities. Starting in

Glass–Steagall legislation - Misplaced Pages Continue

1312-430: The repeal, especially of sections 20 and 32. Instead, the five year anniversary of its repeal was marked by numerous sources explaining that the GLBA had not significantly changed the market structure of the banking and securities industries. More significant changes had occurred during the 1990s when commercial banking firms had gained a significant role in securities markets through "Section 20 affiliates". The perception

1353-735: The risks they may take. In 1999 Congress passed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act , also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, to repeal them. Eight days later, President Bill Clinton signed it into law. After the financial crisis of 2007–2008 , some commentators argued that the repeal of Sections 20 and 32 had played an important role in leading to the housing bubble and financial crisis. Economics Nobel Memorial laureate Joseph Stiglitz , for instance, argued that "[w]hen repeal of Glass-Steagall brought investment and commercial banks together,

1394-469: The same way if the regulations had still been in force. Lawrence J. White , for instance, noted that "it was not [commercial banks'] investment banking activities, such as underwriting and dealing in securities, that did them in". At the time of the repeal, most commentators believed it would be harmless. Because the Federal Reserve's interpretations of the act had already weakened restrictions previously in place, commentators did not find much significance in

1435-613: The time in which banks needed to eliminate securities affiliates to one year was known as the driving force of what helped the Glass–Steagall act to be signed into law. The Glass–Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking was in four sections of the 1933 Banking Act (sections 16, 20, 21, and 32). The Banking Act of 1935 clarified the 1933 legislation and resolved inconsistencies in it. Together, they prevented commercial Federal Reserve member banks from: Conversely, Glass–Steagall prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits. The law gave banks one year after

1476-463: The two main goals of the new legislation were to "control speculation" and to "promote the stability of employment and business". To make this happen, Eccles also wanted the Federal Reserve to become the Central Bank with concentrated power. Eccles proposed four key points to be included in the new legislation: On February 5, 1935, the "Administration banking bill", as it was initially titled,

1517-533: The two provisions restricting affiliations between banks and securities firms. By that time, many commentators argued Glass–Steagall was already "dead". Most notably, Citibank 's 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney , one of the largest U.S. securities firms, was permitted under the Federal Reserve Board 's then existing interpretation of the Glass–Steagall Act. In November 1999, President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law

1558-425: The world's largest securities firms ( Salomon Smith Barney ). By defining commercial banks as banks that take in deposits and make loans and investment banks as banks that underwrite and deal with securities the Glass–Steagall act explained the separation of banks by stating that commercial banks could not deal with securities and investment banks could not own commercial banks or have close connections with them. With

1599-880: Was "An Act to Improve the Facilities of the Federal Reserve System for the Service of Commerce, Industry, & Agriculture, to Provide Means for Meeting the Needs of Member Banks in Exceptional Circumstances, & for Other Purposes". The Glass–Steagall Act of 1932 authorized Federal Reserve Banks to (1) lend to five or more Federal Reserve System member banks on a group basis or to any individual member bank with capital stock of $ 5 million or less against any satisfactory collateral, not only “eligible paper,” and (2) issue Federal Reserve Bank Notes (i.e., paper currency ) backed by US government securities when

1640-554: Was a law passed by the United States Congress on February 27, 1932, prior to the inclusion of more comprehensive measures in the Banking Act of 1933 , which is now more commonly known as the Glass-Steagall Act . It was the first time that currency (non-specie, paper currency etc.) was permitted to be allocated for the Federal Reserve System . It was passed in an effort to stop deflation and expanded

1681-470: Was given to the House Committee on Banking and Currency . There was strong public demand for reform, including multiple plans for a federally owned and operated central bank. The bill passed the House (271-110) very quickly and with all main points intact. In the Senate, the bill faced stiffer criticism, specifically from Carter Glass. The main sticking point was who was to have the most control,

Glass–Steagall legislation - Misplaced Pages Continue

#369630