DOCSLIB.ORG

Glass–Steagall Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Glass–Steagall Act Glass–Steagall Act The Glass–Steagall Act is a term often applied to the entire Banking Act of 1933, after its Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D) of Virginia, and Representative Henry B. Steagall (D) of Alabama.[1] The term Glass–Steagall Act, however, is most often used to refer to four provisions of the Banking Act of 1933 that limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms.[2] This article deals with that limited meaning of the Glass–Steagall Act. A separate article describes the entire Banking Act of 1933. Starting in the early 1960s federal banking regulators interpreted provisions of the Glass– Steagall Act to permit commercial banks and especially commercial bank affiliates to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.[3] By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass–Steagall Act were repealed through the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA), many commentators argued Glass–Steagall was already “dead.”[4] Most notably, Citibank’s 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney, one of the largest US securities firms, was permitted under the Federal Reserve Board’s then existing interpretation of the Glass–Steagall Act.[5] President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate."[6] Many commentators have stated that the GLBA’s repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the late-2000s financial crisis.[7][8][9] Some critics of that repeal argue it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in affiliated commercial banks.[10] Others have argued that the activities linked to the financial crisis were not prohibited (or, in most cases, even regulated) by the Glass–Steagall Act.[11] Commentators, including former President Clinton in 2008 and the American Bankers Association in January 2010, have also argued that the ability of commercial banking firms to acquire securities firms (and of securities firms to convert into bank holding companies) helped mitigate the financial crisis.[12] Name confusion: 1932 and 1933 Glass–Steagall Acts Sen. Carter Glass (D—Va.) and Rep. Henry B. Steagall (D—Ala.-3), the co-sponsors of the Glass–Steagall Act. Two separate United States laws are known as the Glass–Steagall Act. Both bills were sponsored by Democratic Senator Carter Glass of Lynchburg, Virginia, a former Secretary of the Treasury, and Democratic Congressman Henry B. Steagall of Alabama, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency. 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 a shortage of “eligible paper” held by Federal Reserve banks would have required such currency to be backed by gold.[13] 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.”[14] The entire Banking Act of 1933 (the 1933 Banking Act), which is described in a separate article, is also often referred to as the Glass–Steagall Act.[15] Over time, however, the term Glass– Steagall Act came to be used most often to refer to four provisions of the 1933 Banking Act that separated commercial banking from investment banking.[2] Congressional efforts to “repeal the Glass–Steagall Act” referred to those four provisions (and then usually to only the two provisions that restricted affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms).[16] Those efforts culminated in the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), which repealed the two provisions restricting affiliations between banks and securities firms.[17] Legislative history of the Glass–Steagall Act Main article: Banking Act of 1933 The article on the 1933 Banking Act describes the legislative history of that Act, including the Glass–Steagall provisions separating commercial and investment banking. As described in that article, 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 the final provisions of the 1933 Banking Act.[18] On January 25, 1933, during the lame duck session of Congress following the 1932 elections, the Senate passed a version of the Glass bill that would have required commercial banks to eliminate their securities affiliates.[19] 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.[20] 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 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.[21] As described in the 1933 Banking Act article, many accounts of the Act identify the Pecora Investigation as important in leading to the Act, particularly its Glass–Steagall provisions, becoming law.[22] While supporters of the Glass–Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking cite the Pecora Investigation as supporting that separation,[23] Glass–Steagall critics have argued that the evidence from the Pecora Investigation did not support the separation of commercial and investment banking.[24] The Glass–Steagall provisions separating commercial and investment banking The Glass–Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking was in four sections of the 1933 Banking Act (sections 16, 20, 21, and 32).[2] Section 16 Section 16 prohibited national banks from purchasing or selling securities except for a customer’s account (i.e., as a customer’s agent) unless the securities were purchased for the bank’s account as “investment securities” identified by the Comptroller of the Currency as permitted national bank investments. Section 16 also prohibited national banks from underwriting or distributing securities.[25] Section 16, however, permitted national banks to buy, sell, underwrite, and distribute US government and general obligation state and local government securities. Such securities became known as “bank-eligible securities.”[25] Section 5(c) of the 1933 Banking Act (sometimes referred to as the fifth Glass–Steagall provision) applied Section 16’s rules to Federal Reserve System member state chartered banks.[26] Section 20 Section 20 prohibited any member bank of the Federal Reserve System (whether a state chartered or national bank) from being affiliated with a company that “engaged principally” in “the issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale, or distribution” of securities.[27] Section 21 Section 21 prohibited any company or person from taking deposits if it was in the business of “issuing, underwriting, selling, or distributing” securities.[28] Section 32 Section 32 prohibited any Federal Reserve System member bank from having any officer or director in common with a company “engaged primarily” in the business of “purchasing, selling, or negotiating” securities, unless the Federal Reserve Board granted an exemption.[29] 1935 clarifying amendments Sections 16 and 21 contradicted each other. The Banking Act of 1935 “clarified” that Section 21 would not prevent a deposit taking company from engaging in any of the securities underwriting and dealing activities permitted by Section 16. It also amended Section 16 to permit a bank to purchase stocks, not only debt securities, for a customer’s account.[30] The Banking Act of 1935 amended Section 32 to make it consistent with Section 20 and to prevent a securities company and bank from having any employee (not only any officer) in common. With the amendment, both Sections 20 and 32 applied to companies engaged in the “issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale, or distribution” of securities.[31] Prohibitions apply to dealing in and underwriting or distributing securities The Glass–Steagall Act was primarily directed at restricting banks and their affiliates underwriting or distributing securities. Senator Glass, Representative Steagall, Ferdinand Pecora, and others claimed banks had abused this activity to sell customers (including correspondent banks) high risk securities.[32] As particular “conflicts of interest,” they alleged bank affiliates had underwritten corporate and foreign government bonds to repay loans made by their affiliated banks or, in the opposite direction, banks had lent to or otherwise supported corporations that used the bank’s affiliate to underwrite their bonds.[33] Sections 16 and 5(c) meant no member bank of the Federal Reserve System could underwrite or distribute corporate or other non-governmental bonds.[25] Sections 20 and 32 meant such a bank could not own (directly or through the same bank holding company) a company “engaged primarily in” such underwriting or other securities activities nor have any director
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Redefining the Bank Secrecy Act: Currency Reporting and the Crime of Structuring Courtney J
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 50 | Number 2 Article 4 1-1-2010 Redefining the Bank Secrecy Act: Currency Reporting and the Crime of Structuring Courtney J. Linn Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Courtney J. Linn, Redefining the Bank Secrecy Act: Currency Reporting and the Crime of Structuring, 50 Santa Clara L. Rev. 407 (2010). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol50/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REDEFINING THE BANK SECRECY ACT: CURRENCY REPORTING AND THE CRIME OF STRUCTURING Courtney J. Linn* I. INTRODUCTION The Bank Records and Foreign Transactions Act of 1970 (BSA) requires financial institutions to record (Title I) and report (Title II) information about their customers' transactions, particularly those involving large amounts of currency. 1 The requirements rest on the Congressional finding that BSA records and reports have a high degree of usefulness for law enforcement, tax, intelligence, and regulatory authorities. After a prolonged period of inaction that lasted well into the 1980s, financial institutions complied with the BSA's requirements by sending ever-increasing numbers of reports to the government. This widespread compliance in turn led money launderers, tax evaders, and others who did not want the government to know about their financial activities, to "structure" transactions to evade the BSA.2 *Courtney J.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Statements
    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 November 9, 2012 Congressional Committees Subject: Financial Audit: Office of Financial Stability (Troubled Asset Relief Program) Fiscal Years 2012 and 2011 Financial Statements This report transmits the GAO auditor’s report on the results of our audit of the fiscal years 2012 and 2011 financial statements of the Office of Financial Stability (Troubled Asset Relief Program), which is incorporated in the enclosed Office of Financial Stability (Troubled Asset Relief Program) Agency Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2012. As discussed more fully in the auditor’s report that begins on page 41 of the enclosed agency financial report, we found the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; the Office of Financial Stability (OFS) maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2012; and no reportable noncompliance in fiscal year 2012 with provisions of laws and regulations we tested. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA)1 that authorized the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) on October 3, 2008, requires that TARP, which is implemented by OFS,2 annually prepare and submit to Congress and the public audited fiscal year financial statements that are prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.3 EESA further requires that GAO audit TARP’s financial statements annually.4 We are also required under EESA to report at least every 60 days on the findings resulting from our oversight of the actions taken under TARP.5 This report responds to both of these requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • A “Brazilian Way”? Brazil's Approach to Peacebuilding
    ORDER from CHAOS Foreign Policy in a Troubled World GEOECONOMICS AND GLOBAL ISSUES PAPER 5 | FEBRUARY 2017 A “Brazilian way”? Brazil’s approach to peacebuilding CHARLES T. CALL ADRIANA ERTHAL ABDENUR ABOUT THE ORDER FROM CHAOS PROJECT In the two decades following the end of the Cold War, the world experienced an era charac- terized by declining war and rising prosperity. The absence of serious geopolitical competi- tion created opportunities for increased interdependence and global cooperation. In recent years, however, several and possibly fundamental challenges to that new order have arisen— the collapse of order and the descent into violence in the Middle East; the Russian challenge to the European security order; and increasing geopolitical tensions in Asia being among the foremost of these. At this pivotal juncture, U.S. leadership is critical, and the task ahead is urgent and complex. The next U.S. president will need to adapt and protect the liberal international order as a means of continuing to provide stability and prosperity; develop a strategy that encourages cooperation not competition among willing powers; and, if neces- sary, contain or constrain actors seeking to undermine those goals. In response to these changing global dynamics, the Foreign Policy Program at Brookings has established the Order from Chaos Project. With incisive analysis, new strategies, and in- novative policies, the Foreign Policy Program and its scholars have embarked on a two-year project with three core purposes: • To analyze the dynamics in the international system that are creating stresses, challeng- es, and a breakdown of order. • To define U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Finance © Wikibooks
    Principles of Finance © Wikibooks This work is licensed under a Creative Commons-ShareAlike 4.0 International License Original source: Principles of Finance, Wikibooks http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Principles_of_Finance Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................1 1.1 What is Finance? ................................................................................................................1 1.2 History .................................................................................................................................1 1.2.1 Introduction to Finance ..........................................................................................1 1.2.1.1 Return on Investments ...............................................................................2 1.2.1.2 Debt Finance and Equity Finance - The Two Pillars of Modern Finance ....................................................................................................................................3 1.2.1.2.1 Debt Financing .................................................................................3 1.2.1.2.2 Equity Financing ...............................................................................3 1.2.1.3 Ratio Analysis ...............................................................................................4 1.2.1.3.1 Liquidity Ratios .................................................................................4 Chapter 2 The Basics ......................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Structural Regulation of Banking John Armour* 1. Introduction 'Structural Regulation' Refers to Measures Designed To
    Structural Regulation of Banking John Armour* Note to readers: this is a (very) preliminary draft of a chapter for a book I am co-authoring, entitled Principles of Financial Regulation. Some additional elements referred to in the text (‘box text’ material and figures) are not as yet prepared. Comments are most welcome: john.armour:@law.ox.ac.uk. 1. Introduction ‘Structural regulation’ refers to measures designed to limit the range of activities that may be carried on by a banking firm. The basic idea is to reduce the risk of bank failure by prohibiting banks from getting involved in activities which are judged by policymakers to be ‘too risky’. Bank failure gives rise to significant externalities, hence society has an interest in reducing its probability below that which private parties running the bank might permit. Moreover, the provision of deposit insurance tends to exacerbate these problems, by creating moral hazard for those running the bank. To implement activity restrictions, several policy choices must be confronted. First, which activities are thought to be ‘too risky’ for banks, and why? Conversely, which are not? Second, what counts as a ‘bank’ for the purposes of the restrictions? This has to be determined by reference to a functional classification of activities as well, because otherwise firms could evade the regulation by structuring themselves as ‘non-banks’ but carrying on what in substance was banking activity. Third, at what structural level is the restriction: does it prohibit the activity in question by a bank entity, or anywhere in a group that contains a bank entity? Fourth, for entity-level restrictions, what constraints on intra-group transactions are put in place to ensure that activity restrictions are not undermined? Structural regulation of the financial sector is a tremendously controversial topic.
    [Show full text]
  • Orrick in Italy
    orrick in italy about orrick Established in San Francisco in 1863, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP is a law firm of international renown with more than 1,100 lawyers in 25 offices across the United States, Europe and Asia. Our clients worldwide include major industrial corporations, financial institutions, emerging businesses, government entities and individuals. Orrick in Italy Orrick is based in Italy since 2003 in Milan and Rome with about 100 lawyers whose expertise, professionalism and experience are widely recognized by all the players of the economic and financial market, both Italian and international. Orrick enjoys the confidence of leading Italian and international banks, private equity funds, financial brokers, oil companies, telecommunications, media & entertainment companies, multinational groups active in the traditional and renewable energy, automotive and transportation companies, construction companies, engineering companies and PPP. The Italian firms can also count on a Russian and Chinese desk, with Russian and Chinese professionals based in Italy and active onsite in order to support efficiently the Italian and foreign clients in cross-border deals in these regions. 1 Lawyers in our Milan and Rome offices offer the following cross-border and domestic legal services: • Finance • Corporate • M&A and private equity • Compliance programs pursuant to Italian Legislative Decree 231/01 • Energy and project finance • Corporate and commercial litigation • Competition law • Tax • Market regulation • Debt restructuring and bankruptcy Orrick Milano • Intellectual property and data protection • Administrative law and real estate • Employment law • Equity capital markets • Probono Orrick Roma 3 Finance Orrick’s Italian Finance team is composed by more than 20 lawyers, based in Rome, Milan and London and it’s one of the largest Finance group in Italy.
    [Show full text]
  • Bank Secrecy Act for Operations Staff
    Bank Secrecy Act for Operations Staff Presented by Jan Vogel, Center for Professional Development WilliamsTown Communications, Contributing Writer #TR1118 l Introduction Welcome to CUNA’s Bank Secrecy Act for Operations Staff Training on Demand course! Compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act, otherwise known as the BSA, is a critical task for each and every credit union in the United States, so all credit union employees must be familiar with BSA requirements. To that end, this course provides an overview of the Bank Secrecy Act, including specific actions that you, as a member of your credit union’s operations staff, must take to be BSA compliant. Of course, you also need to be sure that you know What Is the the BSA policy and procedures at your credit union. Bank Secrecy Act? This is key to being in compliance with the require- Not surprisingly, the first step to BSA compliance ments of the Bank Secrecy Act. is understanding just what the Bank Secrecy Act in- Let’s get started! volves and why it was enacted in the first place. In its current form, the BSA is more than just a single act of Objectives Congress; rather, it is a combination of multiple laws The Bank Secrecy Act applies to all credit unions, that have been passed during the last four decades. and it requires that employees in these institutions These laws were enacted to assist law enforcement carry out certain tasks. But what exactly does the officials in the investigation of activities and crimes BSA entail, and how does it affect operations staff such as money laundering, tax evasion, and financing in particular? By the end of this Training on Demand of terrorist groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Nac 2015045254501 White
    BEFORE THE NATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY In the Matter of DECISION Department of Enforcement, Complaint No. 2015045254501 Complainant, vs. Dated: July 26, 2019 Richard O. White Charlotte, North Carolina, Respondent. Respondent structured cash deposits to avoid federal reporting requirements. Held, findings affirmed and sanction modified. Appearances For the Complainant: Leo F. Orenstein, Esq., Joseph E. Strauss, Esq., Savvas A. Foukas, Esq., Tiffany A. Buxton, Esq., Department of Enforcement, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority For the Respondent: Nathan Zezula, Esq., Lueker Mott Zezula LLC Decision Richard O. White appeals a February 27, 2018 Hearing Panel decision. The Hearing Panel found that White knowingly structured cash deposits to evade the federal currency reporting requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act, in violation of the high standards of ethical conduct imposed by FINRA Rule 2010. For his misconduct, the Hearing Panel barred White from associating with any FINRA member in any capacity. The primary issue on appeal is whether White, through his training at his member firm, knew about the relevant currency reporting requirements and then intentionally structured the cash deposits to evade reporting. A second issue is the appropriateness of the sanction imposed by the Hearing Panel. The Hearing Panel concluded that White acted knowingly and intentionally. After an independent review of the record, we agree with the liability findings of the Hearing Panel but modify the sanction it imposed. - 2 - I. Introduction The Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970 (a statute commonly referred to as the “Bank Secrecy Act” or “BSA”) requires U.S. financial institutions to assist U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • What the Financial Services Industry Puts Together Let No Person Put Asunder: How the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Contributed To
    Florida A&M University College of Law Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law Journal Publications Faculty Works 2010 What the Financial Services Industry Puts Together Let No Person Put Asunder: How the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act Contributed to the 2008 - 2009 American Capital Markets Crisis Joseph Karl Grant [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.law.famu.edu/faculty-research Part of the Commercial Law Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Recommended Citation Joseph Karl Grant, What the Financial Services Industry Puts Together Let No Person Put Asunder: How the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Contributed to the 2008 - 2009 American Capital Markets Crisis, 73 Alb. L. Rev. 371 (2010) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Works at Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons @ FAMU Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES WHAT THE FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY PUTS TOGETHER LET NO PERSON PUT ASUNDERt: HOW THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT CONTRIBUTED TO THE 2008- 2009 AMERICAN CAPITAL MARKETS CRISIS Joseph Karl Grant* ABSTRACT The current subprime financial crisis has shaped up to be one of the most dramatic and impactful events in the past few decades. No one particularfactor fully accounts for why the American economy suffered setbacks unseen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Some of the roots of the current financial crisis started taking hold in 1999 when Congresspassed the FinancialServices Modernization Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Narrow Banking Reconsidered: the Functional Approach to Financial Reform
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Phillips, Ronnie J. Research Report Narrow banking reconsidered: The functional approach to financial reform Public Policy Brief, No. 17 Provided in Cooperation with: Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Suggested Citation: Phillips, Ronnie J. (1995) : Narrow banking reconsidered: The functional approach to financial reform, Public Policy Brief, No. 17, ISBN 0941276058, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/54328 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu PPB No.17 2/12/99 4:50 PM Page a1 The Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Public Policy Brief Na r row Banking Re c o n s i d e re d The Functional Approach to Financial Reform Ronnie J.
    [Show full text]
  • Division of Supervision Implementation of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Provisions CONTENTS
    July 31, 2002 Audit Report No. 02-025 Division of Supervision Implementation of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Provisions CONTENTS BACKGROUND 2 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 2 GLBA Titles I, II, and III, Subtitle A 2 Risks to FDIC and the Bank Insurance Fund 4 GLBA-Related Activity of State Nonmember Banks 4 FDIC Approach to Addressing GLBA 5 RESULTS OF AUDIT 5 PROCEDURES FOR SHARING INFORMATION WITH THE SEC 7 · GLBA §115. Examination of Investment Companies 7 · GLBA §217. Removal of the Exclusion from the Definition of Investment Adviser for Banks that Advise Investment Companies 7 · GLBA §220. Interagency Consultation 8 · GLBA §222. Statutory Disqualification for Bank Wrongdoing 8 Recommendation 9 DOS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON “RELATED ORGANIZATIONS” 9 AND BANK RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS DOS Policies and Procedures on “Related Organizations” 9 · GLBA §107. Cross Marketing Restriction; Limited Purpose 10 Bank Relief; Divestiture · Amended Bank Holding Company Act §4(n) “Authority to retain 10 limited non-financial activities and affiliations,” and §4(o) “Regulation of certain financial holding companies” · GLBA §121(b) “Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve 11 Act" DOS Examination Guidance on Bank Recordkeeping Requirements 12 Recommendation 12 DOS INTERNAL DATABASES 13 Case Administration System, ViSION, and SIMS Databases Should Be 13 Revised to Add Fields for Financial Holding Companies Changes to Information Systems Based on Rules and Regulations for §204. 14 Information Sharing, Should Be Anticipated Recommendations 14 CORPORATION
    [Show full text]
  • Full Transcript
    DODD-FRANK-2020/06/30 1 THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION A DECADE OF DODD-FRANK CO-HOSTED BY THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION AND THE CENTER ON FINANCE, LAW & POLICY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Washington, D.C. Tuesday, June 30, 2020 Introduction & Overview: AARON KLEIN Fellow and Policy Director, Center on Regulation & Markets The Brookings Institution Opening Welcome: THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER DODD Former Chairman, U.S. Senate Banking Committee Panel 1: What Were the Difficult Choices of Dodd-Frank, and How Do They Perform Today? MODERATOR: DAMIAN PALETTA Economics Editor, The Washington Post MICHAEL S. BARR Joan and Sanford Weill Dean, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy University of Michigan AMY FRIEND Senior Advisor, FS Vector ANDREW OLMEM Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director U.S. National Economic Council JAMES SEGEL President, James Segel LLC Panel 2: Has Dodd-Frank Reined in Systemic Risk? MODERATOR: DEBORAH SOLOMON Economics Editor, The New York Times LAEL BRAINARD Member, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System DENNIS KELLEHER President and Chief Executive Officer, Better Markets JEREMY STEIN Moise Y. Safra Professor of Economics, Harvard University ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 500 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 DODD-FRANK-2020/06/30 2 JANET YELLEN Distinguished Fellow in Residence, Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy The Brookings Institution Panel 3: How Has Dodd-Frank Performed for the Consumer? MODERATOR: EMILY STEWART Reporter, Vox MEHRSA BARADARAN Professor of Law, University of California Irvine RICHARD CORDRAY Former Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau LISA DONNER Executive Director, Americans for Financial Reform CAMDEN FINE President and Chief Executive Officer, Calvert Advisors Lunchtime Keynote: MODERATOR: DAVID WESSEL Director and Senior Fellow, Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy The Brookings Institution THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER DODD Former Chairman, U.S.
    [Show full text]