Elisabeth Warren and others will make an effort to re-enact the Glass Stegall Act

I am really glad to hear this as it will bring back visibility, integrity, choice to the consumers again and bring the banks back to aligning their interests with the consumers.

This Wallstreet night mare and banks cheating the American public started when Clinton and others deregulated and got rid of Glass Stegall.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/ind...omments-2.html

I am really glad to hear this as it will bring back visibility, integrity, choice to the consumers again and bring the banks back to aligning their interests with the consumers.

This Wallstreet night mare and banks cheating the American public started when Clinton and others deregulated and got rid of Glass Stegall.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/ind...omments-2.html Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

This, rather than Odumbocare, should have been Odumbo's first order of business.

I am really glad to hear this as it will bring back visibility, integrity, choice to the consumers again and bring the banks back to aligning their interests with the consumers.

This Wallstreet night mare and banks cheating the American public started when Clinton and others deregulated and got rid of Glass Stegall.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/ind...omments-2.html Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

This, rather than Odumbocare, should have been Odumbo's first order of business. The "Too Big To Fail" Banks have only grown larger since Odumbo took office.

Actually that is Glass-Spiegel and Warren can't do a damn thing. She isn't a senator or a congressman.

WTF are you jabbering about NO-TEACH? Glass-Spiegel? Did you even read the article? It said she "would" advocate its being passed again (the Glass-Steagall Act). She is running for the Senate. I doubt ANYONE will even propose legislation in the Senate in this arena BEFORE the election.

WTF is "Glass-Spiegel"?

It's a catalog for cheap jewelry

WTF are you jabbering about NO-TEACH? Glass-Spiegel? Did you even read the article? It said she "would" advocate its being passed again (the Glass-Steagall Act). She is running for the Senate. I doubt ANYONE will even propose legislation in the Senate in this arena BEFORE the election.

WTF is "Glass-Spiegel"? Originally Posted by Little Stevie

iz Running4Senate her indian name? iznt CreepyOldLoser's indian name SquattingDog?

Candidates can say anything, and they do, but only when they get into office can they do something.

Actually that is Glass-Spiegel and Warren can't do a damn thing. She isn't a senator or a congressman. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Candidates can say anything, and they do, but only when they get into office can they do something. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Nice "walk back", NO TEACH! Your candidates are guilty of doing the same thing! Nice double standard. You say nothing of Dr. Paul and Rick Perry naming departments they "intend" to close. LMAO. You are pathetic!

NOW, since you let your mouth overload your ass again you should explain "Glass Spiegel", NO TEACH!

Candidates can say anything, and they do, but only when they get into office can they do something. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Profound.

I think one of the first orders of business in 2009 should have been to resurrect Glass-Steagall (or something similar), but I don't believe that goes quite far enough.

It's arguably necessary to separate the big depository institutions from the risks associated with I-Banks. But I don't think that alone would eliminate systemic risk in our global, deeply-interconnected financial system.

The too-big-to-fail banks today are about 50-60% bigger than they were in 2007. The five that everyone considers TBTF are, of course, B of A, JPM, Citi, Wells, and Goldman. I think eight or ten more are at least "borderline TBTF", and would send shock waves through a fragile system if any of them blew up.

In my opinion, Dodd-Frank should be scrapped and replaced with more effective reform. It certainly contains a number of good provisions, but it's 2,300 pages long and no one really understands what the hell large sections of it actually say. A whole lot of things are vaguely left to regulators from different agencies to fill in the blanks later. It still will be some time, for example, before anyone promulgates rules regarding what is or is not OK under the Volcker rule.

As a percentage of assets and earnings, Dodd-Frank imposes far higher costs on smaller community banks than on their large competitors. The megabanks love that, since they'll be able to snap up -- at bargain prices -- a lot of assets from smaller banks that can't make it. In fact, a lot of that has already happened.

That 2,300 page monstrosity has been called "The Lawyers and Lobbyists Full Employment Act of 2010", and not without good reason. By contrast, Glass-Steagall was only 37 pages, yet it served well enough for many decades.

Jim Grant of Grant's Interest Rate Observer proposed what I think would be an effective measure. He suggests that managers and big traders making bets on behalf of institutions backstopped by the Treasury or the Fed should be subject to full clawback if a trade goes bad. His idea is that the responsible party should be on the hook for an amount equal to all salary and bonus income in excess of a certain multiple (Grant suggests 10X) of the average current income of a U.S. full-time worker.

In days gone by, I-Banks that engaged in the riskiest investments were typically structured as partnerships in which the principals were exposed to personal liability. Facing the potential prospect of not being able to hang on to one's luxury homes and yachts tends to focus the mind!

I don't believe for a minute that much of anything has been done to reduce the risk of future financial crises.

I don't believe for a minute that much of anything has been done to reduce the risk of future financial crises. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

As Jon Corzine and Jamie Dimon have recently demonstrated.

We agree on this. COOL.

Interesting take on Glass-Steagall from DealBook's Andrew Ross Sorkin:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/.../?ref=business

His view is that there may be a few myths and misunderstandings surrounding the issue. He does not oppose the resurrection of Glass-Steagall, but simply notes that it is possibly not the "be all and end all" fix, as apparently some people believe.

Warren seems to agree, but says she considers it something of a "symbol" of what needs to happen in order to get regulatory policy headed in the right direction.

This is a very complex issue. Andrew Ross Sorkin writes some good stuff, and I have long recommended making a habit of taking a regular look at his little corner of The New York Times.

She's just another phony liberal liar. She reminds me of Ward Chuchill who also lied about being an American Indian to get tenure at the University of Colorado-Boulder. If Democrats had any shame, she'd be forced out of the party.