DOCSLIB.ORG

The Glass–Steagall Act: Unraveling the Myth Norbert J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Glass–Steagall Act: Unraveling the Myth Norbert J BACKGROUNDER No. 3104 | APRIL 28, 2016 The Glass–Steagall Act: Unraveling the Myth Norbert J. Michel, PhD Abstract The 1933 Glass–Steagall Act is widely acclaimed for ending abusive and Key Points risky financial practices that led to the Great Depression, but it has a much better reputation than it deserves. The foundation of its supposed n The Glass–Steagall Act, the 1933 success is the Act’s vaunted separation of commercial and investment law that separated commercial banking. In truth, however, this separation was never absolute. The law and investment banking, gained a much better reputation than it implemented general prohibitions on certain activities, but included ever deserved. exceptions in every case. That is, the Act did not implement a complete n separation of commercial and investment banking. Furthermore, there There is virtually no evidence that allowing banks to engage in is virtually no evidence that the combination of commercial and invest- securities activities during the ment banking threatened bank safety in the pre-Glass–Steagall era. In pre-Glass–Steagall era worsened most cases the evidence supports the opposite conclusion, that the com- their financial condition relative to bination actually strengthened banks. In virtually all cases of supposed- those engaged in strictly commer- ly abusive and unsound practices during the pre-Glass–Steagall era, the cial bank activities. evidence cited either refers to a secondary source, is nonexistent, or is ir- n Allowing banks to engage in both relevant because Glass–Steagall did not address the practice specifically. types of financial activities actu- ally strengthened these commer- he 1933 Glass–Steagall Act is still admired by many who believe cial banks relative to their special- Tits separation of commercial and investment banking banned ized peers. the high-risk activities that caused the Great Depression. Yet there n Glass–Steagall did not implement are so many myths and falsehoods surrounding this notion—and a complete separation of com- the Act itself—that it is difficult to comprehend how little sup- mercial and investment bank- porting evidence Congress uncovered prior to passing the bill. In ing. Four of the bill’s sections implemented the separation, and fact, there is virtually no evidence that banks engaging in securi- each one included exceptions, ties activities before the Act passed were in worse financial condi- several of which were used from tion than their specialized peers. The evidence actually suggests the beginning. that banks engaged in both types of financial activities were stron- n The Glass–Steagall separation ger than those institutions engaged in only commercial banking. was little more than a pet project of Senator Carter Glass, who This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/bg3104 regarded securities investment as The Heritage Foundation illegitimate speculative activity. 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Reinstating the Glass-Steagall Washington, DC 20002 separation would negatively (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org impact financial intermediation. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. BACKGROUNDER | NO. 3104 APRIL 28, 2016 Nonetheless, Glass–Steagall’s restrictions still enjoy not repeal the Glass–Steagall Act. The GLBA repealed widespread support more than 80 years after the only two sections of Glass–Steagall, leaving intact Act’s passage. some of the restrictions the 1933 law placed on finan- Numerous analysts have cited the many abusive cial markets.2 Furthermore, although it is true that and reckless investment practices Congress uncov- the GLBA allowed some firms to engage in activities ered prior to passing the Glass–Steagall Act. But from which they had been previously restricted, all of these assertions are exaggerated or untrue. The these activities are still regulated.3 record shows that many of these claims refer to sec- Prior to the GLBA reforms, the financial indus- ondary sources rather than the original record, and try was mainly regulated based on industry bound- to opinions and allegations rather than actual evi- aries.4 In that framework, banks were regulated by dence of abuses. In some cases, commentators refer banking regulators, insurance companies by insur- to evidence against practices that had nothing to do ance regulators, savings and loans by thrift regu- with the combination of investment and commercial lators, and so on. The GLBA shifted the emphasis banking, such as tax avoidance and excessive sala- toward functional regulation, whereby specific com- ries. Nonetheless, over time, the mythical stature mercial activities were to be regulated by the same of Glass–Steagall has grown, especially in the wake regulator, regardless of industry boundaries. Under of the 2008 financial crisis. ThisBackgrounder pro- this new framework, whether a bank, insurance vides a summary of the many misconceptions sur- company, or broker-dealer engaged in a securities- rounding Glass–Steagall and the truths behind them. related activity, the activity would now be regulated by the same financial regulator rather than three The GLBA Did Not Repeal or Deregulate separate agencies.5 Perhaps the most recent Glass–Steagall myth is Thus, it is inaccurate to say that the GLBA dereg- that its repeal caused the 2008 financial crisis. In ulated financial markets.6 The bill expanded allow- particular, many cite the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley able regulated activities for some financial firms. Act (GLBA) as evidence that financial market deregu- Furthermore, the GLBA contained five titles unre- lation caused the 2008 crisis. These critics maintain lated to Glass–Steagall that, in many instances, that the GLBA repealed the Glass–Steagall Act, thus increased financial regulations.7 Regardless, there is leading to excessive risk-taking in deregulated U.S. a great deal of confusion surrounding the GLBA and financial markets.1 There are several problems with Glass–Steagall, and it begins with the Glass–Steagall this story, not the least of which is that the GLBA did Act itself. 1. See, for example, Jim Zarroli, “Visiting New York City, Bernie Sanders Attacks Clinton, ‘Greed’ Of Wall Street,” NPR, January 6, 2016, http://www.npr.org/2016/01/06/462094414/visiting-new-york-city-bernie-sanders-attacks-clinton-greed-of-wall-street (accessed January 6, 2016); James Rickards, “Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis,” U.S. News & World Report, August 27, 2012, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis (accessed December 21, 2015); and Joseph Stiglitz, “Capitalist Fools,” Vanity Fair, December 31, 2008, http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/01/stiglitz200901-2 (accessed December 21, 2015). 2. Specifically, Section 101 of the GLBA repealed Sections 20 and 32 of the 1933 Act but left Sections 16 and 21 intact. A copy of the GLBA is available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-106s900enr/pdf/BILLS-106s900enr.pdf (accessed February 1, 2016). 3. Put differently, while the GLBA changed the financial regulatory framework in the U.S., it did not deregulate firms’ activities. See Norbert J. Michel, “The Myth of Financial Market Deregulation,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3094, April 28, 2016, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/04/the-myth-of-financial-market-deregulation. 4. Aulana Peters and David Powers, “Functional Regulation: Looking Ahead,” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 18 (1985), pp. 1075–1098, http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1459&context=llr (accessed December 21, 2015). 5. Securities activities are generally regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, but there is still some overlapping regulatory authority in the post-GLBA framework. See Simpson, Thacher, & Bartlett, LLP, “The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,” November 17, 1999, http://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-source/cold-fusion-existing-content/publications/pub390.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed March 9, 2016). See also Peters and Powers, “Functional Regulation: Looking Ahead,” 1985. 6. It is true that the GLBA’s sponsors referred to the bill as deregulatory, but this fact does not alter the actual details of what the bill accomplished. See Eric Lipton and Stephen Labaton, “Deregulator Looks Back, Unswayed,” The New York Times, November 16, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed November 19, 2015). 7. See Michel, “The Myth of Financial Market Deregulation.” 2 BACKGROUNDER | NO. 3104 APRIL 28, 2016 The History of Glass–Steagall “unless in any such case there is a permit therefore The Glass–Steagall Act commonly refers to the issued by the Federal Reserve Board; and the Board is Banking Act of 1933, the law that separated commer- authorized to issue such permit if in its judgment it is cial and investment banking in the U.S.8 Though this not incompatible with the public interest.”12 separation is often referred to as the Glass–Steagall Section 16, which the GLBA left intact, generally Act (or simply Glass–Steagall), the legal separation prohibited banks from underwriting or dealing in was only part of a much larger bill. While the legal securities.13 Section 21, which the GLBA also left in separation was implemented in four sections (16, 20, place, generally prohibited investment banks from 21, and 32) of the Banking Act of 1933, the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Modernizing Financial Services: the Glass-Steagall Act Revisited
    MODERNIZING FINANCIAL SERVICES: THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT REVISITED National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FEDERALLY-INSURED CREDIT UNIONS | NAFCU.ORG | 1 INTRODUCTION: Since the financial crisis, the credit union industry has experienced significant consolidation in the financial marketplace while the largest banks have reaped record profits and grown in both size and scope. From 2008 to 2017, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) chartered only 29 new federal credit unions while, during that same period, 2,528 credit unions closed or merged out of existence. The post-crisis regulatory environment has contributed to this decade-long trend of consolidation, but credit unions have also faced barriers to growth in the form of field of membership rules, capital requirements, and limits on interest rates, among many other restrictions. Accordingly, while it is essential to promote regulatory relief that reduces compliance burdens, credit unions also need modern rules to evolve and grow. Regulatory burden and the pressure to consolidate affects more than just the credit union industry. Community banks have experienced similar declines.1 The lack of new charters among community institutions illustrates the extent to which complex and poorly tailored regulations have put a stranglehold on growth and, by extension, limited consumer financial services. In recognition of these trends and the need for regulatory relief, Congress recently passed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155). S. 2155 garnered bipartisan support and helped alleviate some burdens associated with reporting under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the NCUA’s member business lending rules, and provided new safe harbors for compliance with federal consumer financial protection laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 36, Number 30, August 7, 2009
    Executive Intelligence Review EIRAugust 7, 2009 Vol. 36 No. 30 www.larouchepub.com $10.00 Reality of Collapse Destroys Fantasy of Recovery The Incredible Shrinking Obama Presidency ‘China Youth Daily’ Circulates LaRouche’s Proposals LaRouche Webcast: The Fall Of the House of Windsor SUBSCRIBE TO EIR ONLINE The Banking System Has Already Collapsed! “There is no possibility of a non-collapse of the present financial system—none! It's finished, now!” —Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., webcast, July 25, 2007 Unless the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act “is enacted as a first order of business of the 110th Congress in September [2007], many millions of Americans will be evicted from their homes.... The foreclosure tsunami is occurring, not as a result of a mere housing or mortgage crisis, but a disintegration of the entire global financial system.” —EIR Editorial, Aug. 31, 2007 “My view of the economy is that the fundamentals are strong.” —President George W. Bush, Dec. 20, 2007 EIR Online’s Subscribers Know What Is Really Going On.... Do You? To subscribe: www.larouchepub.com/eiw Call 1-800-278-3135 (toll-free) See back cover for subscription rates Founder and Contributing Editor: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. Editorial Board: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Antony Papert, Gerald Rose, Dennis Small, Edward Spannaus, Nancy Spannaus, Jeffrey Steinberg, EI R William Wertz Editor: Nancy Spannaus Managing Editors: Bonnie James, Susan Welsh Science Editor: Marjorie Mazel Hecht Technology Editor: Marsha Freeman From the Managing Editor Book Editor: Katherine Notley Graphics Editor: Alan Yue Photo Editor: Stuart Lewis Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol “ INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS f I were President, I’d end this thing right now!” Lyndon LaRouche Counterintelligence: Jeffrey Steinberg, Michele I Steinberg declared at his Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • Leading Articles & Commentary On
    Leading Articles & Commentary on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Compiled by the Robert Crown Law Library April 2011 Source Link Excerpt Derivatives, As Accused by Buffett http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/derivative By Andrew Ross Sorkin s-as-accused-by-buffett/ New York Times March 14, 2011 The Official Verdict: America’s FCIC http://www.economist.com/node/18060818?story_i “The report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report is Big, Surprisingly Readable d=18060818 Commission (FCIC), America’s official and a Disappointment probe, gets things slightly the wrong way Economist round. It is breezily written, despite its Mar. 3, 2011 bulk. “The fault lies not in the stars, but in us” is its way of underlining that the crisis was avoidable.” In Case You Didn’t Get the http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/in-case- Memo...The Real Causes of the So- you-didnt-get-the-memo--- Called Financial Crisis /2011/02/19/ABMMfvH_story.html By Michael Lewis Washington Post February 20, 2011 1 A Political Divide Over the Inquiry of http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/business/17cri “The government inquiry into the causes the Financial Crisis sis.html of the 2008 financial crisis was the focus By Sewell Chan of intense partisan bickering on New York Times Wednesday at a House hearing. February 17, 2011 Republicans called the final 545-page report a political exercise whose findings were mostly inevitable, while Democrats defended its main conclusion: that Wall Street risk-taking and regulatory negligence combined to produce an avoidable disaster.” Social Forces, More than Bad Actors, http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/- Led to Crisis 1032740-1.html By Gregory D.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
    FinancialCrisisInquiryCommission Background: ThisMayCongresspassedandPresidentObamasignedtheFraudEnforcementandRecovery Actof2009(FERA).Amongotherthings,theActestablishedaFinancialCrisisInquiry Commission(FCIC)andchargeditwith“examin[ing]thecauses,domesticandglobal,ofthe currentfinancialandeconomiccrisisintheUnitedStates.”ThelawinstructstheCommissionto investigatetheroleof22specifiedfactorsinprecipitatingthecrisisandlookintothecollapseof eachmajorfinancialfirmthatfailedorwouldhavefailedwithoutextraordinarygovernment assistancebetweenAugust2007andApril2009.TheCommissionreceivedbroadsubpoena power,anopen-endedmandatetogatherinformationfromgovernmentagenciesandprivate entitiesandtheauthoritytorefercasesforfederalorstateprosecution.(seeAttachmentA) TheCommissionconsistsofsixmembersappointedbyDemocraticcongressionalleadersand fourmembersappointedbytheirRepublicancounterparts.(AttachmentB)FormerCalifornia statetreasurerPhilAngelidesservesaschairmanoftheFCIC(AttachmentC);formerHouse WaysandMeansCommitteechairmanBillThomas(R-CA)wasnamedvicechairman.The CommissionwillholditsfirstpublicmeetingonSeptember17andisrequiredunderFERAto reportitsfindingsinDecember2010. TheCommission’sOpportunities: • Deepenandsustainthedemandforreformbyshapingpublicunderstandingofthedoctrines, policiesandpracticesthatledtothecollapse • Buildafoundationalrecordforsubsequenthistoricalaccountsoftheeventsunder investigation • Advancetheprocessofbringingindividualandinstitutionalwrongdoerstojustice • Indicatethescopeandkeycharacteristicsofreformsneededtorestorestability,accountability
    [Show full text]
  • New Deal & Economy
    New Deal & Economy New Deal & Economy • Banks & Credit • Federal Spending • Money • Taxation • Industry • Stock Market New Deal and the Banks Bank Crisis • 1931-32 • 2,000 banks failed • Assets - $1.7 billion • March 1933 – 38 states closed banks – NY Stock Exchange closed – Chicago Board of Trade closed Banking • Five day bank holiday • Emergency Banking Act (March ‘33) – Drafted by Hoover’s Treasury Dept – Assistance to private bankers • Federal Deposit Insurance Corp – June 1933 – Accepted by FDR Emergency Banking Act of 1933 • Authorized RFC to – Evaluate banks • Sound banks to reopen • Unsound banks closed – Buy bank stock • Authorized Federal Reserve bank notes Reconstruction Finance Corp. • Hoover: – Voluntary bankers’ pools • RFC: next step • Loans to insolvent banks • $2 billion thru 1932 Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 • Enacted - June 1933 • Separate commercial & investment banking • Established FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. • Opposed by FDR & Eastern banks • Supported by John Nance Garner & Jesse Jones • Based on Texas program • Original limit: $2,500 • Banks to sell preferred stock to RFC Banking Act of 1935 • Federal Reserve control of monetary policy • Greater govt control of Federal Reserve Jesse Jones • Born Tenn. 1874 • Lumber & banking • Houston Ship Canal QuickTime™ and a • Wilson Dem. decompressor are needed to see this picture. • Anti-Wall Street • Dem Fin. Dir. 24-28 RFC under FDR • “Government Bank” • Loans to – Railroads • Management oversight • Limits on salaries – NYC & Chicago – Bonneville Power Authority RFC Subsidiaries • Export-Import Bank • Federal National Mortgage Association • Electric Home and Farm Authority • Commodity Credit Corporation RFC Controversy • High interest rates – Not compete with private banks • Careful lending • Insufficient? • Private banks & corporations too timid? • More expansion needed? Banks & Credit • Rescued banking system • Expanded credit • Enough? New Deal and Federal Spending FDR & Federal Budget • Believed in balanced budgets • Willing to incur temporary deficit for relief • Unimpressed by J.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Vote Wide Inquiry on Short Selling
    DON’T BLAME THE SHORTS This page intentionally left blank DON’T BLAME THE SHORTS WHY SHORT SELLERS ARE ALWAYS BLAMED FOR MARKET CRASHES AND HOW HISTORY IS REPEATING ITSELF ROBERT SLOAN New York Chicago San Francisco Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan New Delhi San Juan Seoul Singapore Sydney Toronto Copyright © 2010 by Robert Sloan. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ISBN: 978-0-07-163687-2 MHID: 0-07-163687-0 The material in this eBook also appears in the print version of this title: ISBN: 978-0-07-163686-5, MHID: 0-07-163686-2. All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners. Rather than put a trademark symbol after every occur- rence of a trademarked name, we use names in an editorial fashion only, and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the trademark. Where such designations appear in this book, they have been printed with initial caps. McGraw-Hill eBooks are available at special quantity discounts to use as premiums and sales promotions, or for use in corporate training programs. To contact a representative please e-mail us at [email protected]. Articles reprinted from The New York Times, March 4, April 9, 11, and 21 © 1932 The New York Times. All rights reserved. Used by permission and protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • In Search of the Banking Regulator Amid U.S. Financial Reforms of the 1930S Dominique Lacoue-Labarthe
    In Search of the Banking Regulator amid U.S. Financial Reforms of the 1930s Dominique Lacoue-Labarthe To cite this version: Dominique Lacoue-Labarthe. In Search of the Banking Regulator amid U.S. Financial Reforms of the 1930s. 2014. hal-00937533v1 HAL Id: hal-00937533 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00937533v1 Preprint submitted on 28 Jan 2014 (v1), last revised 16 Dec 2014 (v2) HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. In Search of the Banking Regulator amid U.S. Financial Reforms of the 1930s Dominique Lacoue-Labarthe LAREFI Working Paper N° 201 4-01 2014 http: //lare -efi.u -bordeaux4.fr LAREFI Université de-Bordeaux Bâtiment Recherche Economie – 1er étage Avenue Léon Duguit – 33 608 Pessac i LAREFI – LABORATOIRE D ’ANALYSE ET DE RECHERCHE EN ECONOMIE ET FINANCES INTERNATIONALES AUTHORS Dominique Lacoue-Labarthe, LAREFI, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV NOTICES LAREFI Working Papers contain preliminary material and research results. They have been peer reviewed. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment; any opinions expressed are only those of the author(s). Copyright LAREFI. All rights reserved. Sections of this material may be reproduced for personal and not-for-profit use without the express written permission of but with acknowledgment to LAREFI.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Regulatory Reform After the Crisis: an Assessment
    Financial regulatory reform after the crisis: an assessment By Darrell Duffie1 Executive Summary “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” – Rahm Emanuel, November 2008. This report offers a brief assessment of the post-crisis regulatory reform of the financial system: the most sweeping re-regulation of banking and financial markets since the US “New Deal” reforms2 conducted during the Great Depression. In the 21st century, finance permeates the global economy more deeply and intricately than ever before. The financial crisis of 2007-09 revealed powerful new variations of the notion of a “bank run”. As with the US reforms of the 1930s, governments have been energized by the heavy economic fallout of the crisis, especially given the revelations of socially excessive risk-taking and self-interested misbehavior. Commenters seethed over bailouts of wide swaths of the financial system, including banks, broker-dealers, a huge insurance firm, government- affiliated mortgage agencies, and money-market mutual funds. Staggering social costs were evident in lost output and employment. For example, within five quarters of the end of 2007, the real gross domestic product of the United States and the euro area each fell by about 4%, and were even further below their normal growth paths.3 The impact on Japan was even more severe. The euro area was then battered by a second wave of crisis arising from the exposure of its already weakened banking system to shaky sovereign debt and from worries over the future path of the eurozone. Legislatures and finance ministers around the world empowered financial regulators to rehabilitate on a grand scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Why a New 'Pecora Commission' Is Urgently Needed
    Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 36, Number 10, March 13, 2009 EIR Conference Report JACQUES CHEMINADE Why a New ‘Pecora Commission’ Is Urgently Needed The Schiller Institute, founded by Helga Zepp- the tax code, so that Morgan and his like would never LaRouche, held an international conference in Rüs- pay taxes. Al Capone would never have gone to prison, selsheim, Germany, Feb. 21-22, with the title, “Re- had he known “Andy” Mellon better. Pecora then building the World Economy after the Systemic Crisis.” showed that the total taxes paid by the entire House of Keynoted by Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp- Morgan, not only J.P. Morgan, but the entire House of LaRouche, whose speeches we published last week, the Morgan, and its partners, in the previous five years, was conference was attended by about 350 people from 25 a single payment of $5,000 in 1931. nations. We continue here with presentations by some of Then came the list of J.P. Morgan’s and his associ- the other speakers. ates’ properties. They controlled most of the American Jacques Cheminade, president of France’s Solidar- economy, with their British friends. And then came J.P. ity and Progress party (Solidarité et Progrès) addressed Morgan’s preferred list, by which a bank’s influential the conference on Feb. 22. The panel was entitled, “Is friends, including former President Calvin Coolidge, Mankind Capable of Governing Himself?” participated in stock offerings at steeply discounted rates. Their full control of the American economy was Good morning. then exposed. The scene is in the United States hearings.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Notable Senate Investigations: the Pecora Committee
    A History of Notable Senate Investigations prepared by the United States Senate Historical Office Citation: "Subcommittee on Senate Resolutions 84 and 239 (The Pecora Committee), Notable Senate Investigations, U.S. Senate Historical Office, Washington, D.C.” Subcommittee on Senate Resolutions 84 and 239 (The Pecora Committee) Resolution passed: March 2, 1932 Report issued: June 16, 1934 Chairman: Peter Norbeck (R-SD), 1932-1933; Duncan Fletcher (D-FL), 1933-1934 Vice Chairman: Duncan Fletcher, 1932-1933; Peter Norbeck, 1933-1934 Committee members: John Blaine (R-WI) Edward Costigan (D-CO) James Couzens (R-MI) Carter Glass (D-VA) John Townsend (R-DE) Origins Beginning in September 1929, the “Roaring Twenties” came to an agonizing halt as stock prices on Wall Street plunged. On October 24, tagged Black Thursday, a selling frenzy resulted in one-day losses that totaled $9 billion. The following Tuesday, October 29, the market traded 16 million shares—a record that would stand for 39 years. By November the market had shed some $26 billion in value. The market crash in 1929 led to the Great Depression, the longest economic downturn in American history. By 1932 nearly one-quarter of all Americans were unemployed. The financial crisis closed thousands of banks across the country. As depositors panicked, “bank runs” became a common sight on American main streets. To strengthen the financial sector and bolster sagging markets, President Herbert Hoover called on banks to enforce their internal regulations. Amid rumors that “bear raiders” were undermining his efforts, Hoover asked senators to investigate stock market practices. Process On March 2, 1932, senators passed Senate Resolution 84 authorizing the Committee on Banking and Currency to investigate “practices with respect to the buying and selling and the borrowing and lending” of stocks and securities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Permanence of Quasi-Legislative Independent Commissions
    The Rise and Permanence of Quasi-Legislative Independent Commissions By: Steven R. Ross,* Raphael A. Prober,** and Gabriel K. Gillett*** Disclaimer ABSTRACT This article explores Congress’s recent trend of creating quasi-legislative independent commissions to augment its own investigations, and determines what factors may enhance the chance that a commission will prove successful. Although Congress has never been the lone forum for investigations, since 2001 the legislature has been empanelling entities of outside experts to investigate the most significant economic and national security issues. This Article begins with a history of governmental investigations in America, highlighting activity by Congress, independent agencies, and presidential commissions. Next, it describes the modern political, communications, and scheduling strains on Congress that have created an opportunity for new types of investigations, and offers case studies of three quasi-legislative independent commissions – the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Then, this Article scrutinizes these case studies and concludes that a quasi-legislative independent commission is most likely to be successful where it has a limited scope and investigative flexibility, features members seen as free from political pressures, uses discretion in compelling information, and ties its mission to larger legislative reform. Finally, this Article concludes by
    [Show full text]
  • PHONE BANKING Introduction
    PHONE BANKING Introduction Citibank, a major international bank, is the consumer banking arm of financial services giant Citigroup. Citibank was founded in 1812 as the City Bank of New York, later First National City Bank of New York. As of March 2010, Citigroup is the third largest bank holding company in the United States by total assets, after Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase.[1] Citibank has retail banking operations in more than 100 countries and territories around the world. More than half of its 1,400 offices are in the United States, mostly in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Miami. More recently, Citibank has expanded its operations in the Boston, Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, and Washington, D.C., metropolitan areas. In addition to the standard banking transactions, Citibank offers insurance, credit card and investment products. Their online services division is among the most successful in the field, [citation needed] claiming about 15 million users. As a result of the global financial crisis of 2008–2009 and huge losses in the value of its subprime mortgage assets, Citibank was rescued by the U.S. government under plans agreed for Citigroup. On November 23, 2008, in addition to initial aid of $25 billion, a further $25 billion was invested in the corporation together with guarantees for risky assets amounting to $306 billion.[2] Since this time, Citibank has repaid their government loans in full. [3] Founded in 1812 as the City Bank of New York, ownership and management of the bank was taken over by Moses Taylor, a protégé of John Jacob Astor and one of the giants of the business world in the 19th century.
    [Show full text]