Effect of US Glass-Steagall Act

Effect of US Glass-Steagall Act

Effect of US Glass-Steagall Act

  1. Introduction

The Glass-Steagall Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1933 as the Banking Act, which disallowed business banks from partaking in the speculation managing an account business. (Alex, 2017) Glass-Steagall was supported by Senator Carter Glass, a previous Treasury secretary, and Rep. Henry Steagall, an individual from the House of Representatives and Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee. The demonstration was passed as a crisis measure to counter the disappointment of very nearly 5,000 banks amid the Great Depression. The effect of US Glass-Steagall Act lost its intensity in resulting decades and was mostly revoked in 1999. Formally known as the Banking Act of 1933, it was one of the milestone bits of enactment related with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. The measure built up the idea of store protection and set up the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to give it. Glass-Steagall additionally raised a firewall between business banks, which take stores and make advances, and venture banks, which sort out the offer of bonds and stocks. (Demos, 2009)The Road to Glass-Steagall is Between 1929 and 1933, more than 4,000 U.S. banks had shut for all time, saddling contributors with near $400 million in misfortunes. In March 1933, President Roosevelt had been compelled to close down the whole managing an account framework for four days. The law at the time enabled banks to activity uninhibitedly in securities. A congressional examination driven by a torch investigator named Ferdinand Pecora uncovered gigantic proof of rashness, cronyism, and extortion both in the utilization of contributor reserves and in the advancement of securities available to be purchased to the general population. A best official of Chase National Bank (progenitor of the present JPMorgan Chase) had enhanced himself by short-moving his organization’s offers amid the share trading system crash. National City Bank (now Citibank) had taken a store of fizzled advances to Latin American governments, bundled them as securities, and emptied them on clueless speculators. Managing an account and securities endorsing made for a harmful mix, numerous individuals finished up. The Glass-Steagall Act appropriately allowed banks a year to choose: they could escape the securities business, and appreciate the advantages of store protection and access to the low-premium credit of the Federal Reserve; or they could be speculation banks and financier houses, forego those benefits. (Amadeo, 2018)

  1. The US Glass-Steagall Act and 2007/2008 financial crisis

I agree that repeal of the US glass steagall act contribute to the financial crisis.

Yes, I do agree with it because the nullification of the Glass-Steagall Act was at most a minor supporter of the money related emergency. At the core of the 2008 emergency was almost $5 trillion worth of fundamentally useless home loan advances, among different elements. Despite the fact that the nullification took into account a lot greater banks, it can’t be reprimanded for the emergency. Since non-bank loan specialists started the mind lion’s share of subprime contracts, and the purchasers of over portion of them in the 10 years paving the way to the 2008 emergency were not banks – business or venture – but rather Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, blaming this specific managing an account direction isn’t justified. Some contend that the annulment of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 caused the monetary emergency since banks were never again kept from working as both business and venture banks, and nullification enabled banks to wind up generously bigger, or “too huge to flop.” However, the emergency would almost certainly have happened even without the Glass-Steagall nullify. Glass-Steagall connected to banks, and albeit a significant number of home loan upheld subordinates were made and sold by banks, subprime contracts — the basic resources of the subsidiaries — were initially issued by non-bank moneylenders, and these underlying advances would not have been counteracted by Glass-Steagall. (Corinne, 2011) Likewise, speculation banks, for example, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs — every single real player in the subprime contract emergency — never wandered into business keeping money. They were speculation banks, similarly as they had been before Glass-Steagall was revoked. The main driver of the monetary emergency was the subprime contract emergency. At the core of that issue lies the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy progressively “reasonable” home loans to urge moneylenders to make credits to low-pay and minority borrowers. So as to meet HUD’s objectives, banks started to establish strategies, for example, prior any prerequisite for an initial installment and tolerating joblessness benefits as a qualifying wellspring of salary. (Once more, the lion’s share of these moneylenders were private home loan banks, not banks, so the Glass-Steagall Act didn’t have any significant bearing to them.) This lead to many individuals getting contracts they couldn’t manage, making defaults inescapable. (Crawford, 2011)

There were various contributing elements to the money related emergency, and incomplete fault can be doled out to deregulation. The nullification of the Glass-Steagall Act, in any case, played at most a minor job in the emergency. (Davies, 2015)The general accord among scholastics and fund specialists is by all accounts that Glass-Steagall’s nonappearance was presumably not to fault for the 2008 emergency. Be that as it may, while the annulment of Glass-Steagall likely did not cause the emergency, it positively could have exacerbated matters.

  1. The effect of US Glass-Steagall Act on UK banking industry

Too Big to Fail” and Systemic Risks

The individuals who trust the nullification prompted the emergency point to the predicament of Citigroup. The nonappearance of Glass-Steagall allowed Citigroup (Citi) to be brought into the world through the merger of Citibank and Travelers, an insurance agency. In years paving the way to the emergency, Citi made tremendous exclusive wagers and had obtained substantial introduction to securities dependent on subprime contracts, in the long run turning into the second biggest financier of such securities by 2006. As the lodging emergency shook the business sectors, Citi was hit hard, inevitably requiring the biggest monetary bailout ever. Be that as it may, those in the restricting camp state that the greater part of the other seriously bothered establishments in the budgetary emergency were not widespread banks: Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, and Lehman Brothers were unadulterated venture manages an account with no connections to business keeping money. American International Group (AIG), an insurance agency, was on the precarious edge of disappointment, yet it sat outside the domain of Glass-Steagall. (Mahoney, 2016)

Shadow Banking and Securities Market Turbulence

At a surface dimension, the shadow keeping money exercises connected to the budgetary emergency were not disallowed by or significant to the Glass-Steagall Act. As more exercises recently led inside the business managing an account division moved to this parallel and unregulated market, more dangerous conduct developed and endorsing and loaning gauges slipped. In any case, significantly, these new shadow saving money markets were outside the domain of Glass-Steagall and the Banking Act.  In a January 2016 meeting, Bernie Sanders charged, “Secretary Clinton says that Glass-Steagall would not have kept the money related emergency since shadow banks like AIG and Lehman Brothers, not enormous business banks, were the genuine offenders. Shadow banks did bet carelessly, yet where did that cash originate from? It originated from the governmentally guaranteed bank stores of huge business banks—something that would have been restricted under the Glass-Steagall Act.” The general agreement among specialists is that these charges are wrong. As indicated by Lawrence J. White, a specialist on money related direction at New York University, “Business banks could have done those things during the 1960s or prior, even before the Fed and the OCC court choices started to relax the structures of Glass-Steagall.” (Sherman, 2016)

Effect of US Glass-Steagall Act

ICB Report

The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer reported in June 2010 the formation of an Independent Commission on Banking (the ICB), led by Sir John Vickers. The motivation behind the ICB is to figure arrangement suggestions. (ICB, 2011)

The ICB likewise talks about operational subsidiarisation noticing this would be more affordable for banks to execute than the retail ring wall. Be that as it may, while noticing that the improvement of operational subsidiarisation is a useful commitment to enhancing the resolvability of banks it felt that retail ring fencing tended to various issues that were not managed by operational subsidiarisation alone.

The ICB at that point talks about the likelihood of executing the Volcker rule in the UK. On 6 February 2009, President Obama selected the American financial analyst and previous US national financier Paul Volcker as the seat of the President’s Economic Recovery and Advisory Board. The motivation behind the board is to exhort the Obama organization on monetary recuperation measures. Volcker tabled a proposition which wound up known as the “Volcker guideline” or “Volcker plan” which tried to preclude US banks from taking part in restrictive exchanging that isn’t at the command of its customers, and from owning or putting resources into a fence investments or private value support, and additionally constraining the liabilities that the biggest banks could hold. (Dario Focarelli, 2011)

In any case, the ICB rejected presenting the Volcker rule in the UK on the premise that its effect would be inconsequential. This was on the premise that the exercises of devoted exclusive exchanging units inside UK all-inclusive banks had regularly spoken to a little segment of bank resources. The ICB likewise noticed that the Volcker rule is intended to evacuate irreconcilable situations between a bank’s very own exchanging exercises and those it directs for the benefit of customers. While recognizing that the retail ring wall does not handle this, the ICB noticed that directions were at that point set up managing the administration of contentions (see for example part 10 of the FSA’s Senior Management Arrangements, Systems and Controls sourcebook).

On costs the ICB infers that it has not seen proof which proposes that presenting a retail ring wall would considerably build the expenses of UK retail banks. It contends that any increments in cost are destined to fall on discount/speculation managing an account administrations given how the extra expenses emerge, however scope for cost increments is restricted in light of the fact that these administrations are exchanged global markets. (Davies, 2015)

The Interim Report has gotten analysis from numerous in the market, contending that the banks have been let free. Some have proposed that banks will be satisfied in light of the fact that, subject to least benchmarks, they will at present be permitted to exchange capital and liquidity from their UK retail keeping money activities to their discount/speculation managing an account tasks. In the question and answer session on the distribution of the Interim Report Sir John Vickers’ rejected any thought that the ICB had “packaged it”. The facts demonstrate that ring fencing has numerous attractions including the expedient goals of key retail tasks like client stores, installments frameworks and SME loaning and that the ICB has required a value additional charge which is over the Basel III necessities. (Lin, 2017)

In any case, the Interim Report does not examine various vital issues. For example, it doesn’t talk about liquidity which was one of the major hidden variables of the monetary emergency. Another issue not addressed are normal gauges of straightforwardness and divulgence. Likewise, observers have indicated out that in connection subsidiarisation if the sheets of the two elements are the equivalent can there truly be much desire as far as governing rules. (CFI, 2009)


So, it is the facts to agree as confirm that the monetary emergency has enough fault to go around. Borrowers were careless, specialists were eager, rating organizations were careless, clients were guileless, and government energized the disaster with unlikely lodging objectives and boundless credit extensions at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, the way that there were such a large number of gatherings to fault ought not be utilized to avoid fault from the most capable gatherings of all—the enormous banks. Without the banks giving financing to the home loan intermediaries and Wall Street while guaranteeing their very own issues of poisonous securities, the whole fraudulent business model could never have off the ground. It was Glass-Steagall that kept the banks from utilizing guaranteed safes to endorse private securities and dump them all alone clients. This capacity alongside financing gave to the various players was what kept the air pocket machine going for such a long time. (JIRU, 2014)


Alex, 2017. Effect of US Glass-Steagall Act. [Online]

Amadeo, K., 2018. Glass Steagall Act of 1933, Its Purpose and Repeal. [Online]

CFI, 2009. The effect of US Glass-Steagall Act on UK banking industry. [Online]

Corinne, 2011. The Repeal Of The Glass-Steagall Act. Journal of Business & Economics Research , 2(1), pp. 949-950.

Crawford, C., 2011. The Repeal Of The Glass- Steagall Act And The Current Financial Crisis. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9(1), pp. 127-135.

Dario Focarelli, D. M.-I. A. F. P., 2011. ARE UNIVERSAL BANKS BETTER UNDERWRITERS? EVIDENCE FROM THE LAST DAYS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT 1. Social Science Research Network electronic library, pp. 01-36.

Davies, P. J., 2015. How the U.K’s Version of Glass-Steagall Will Hit Big Banks. WalkStreet Journal, pp. 01-05.

Demos, 2009. A Brief History of the Glass-Steagall Act: Effect of US Glass-Steagall Act. [Online]

Duffie, D., 2016. Financial regulatory reform after the crisis: an assessment. ECB Forum on Central Banking, pp. 01-45.

ICB, 2011. Banking regulation reform – The UK approach to Glass-Steagall legislation: The Vickers’ Interim Report. [Online]


Jopson, P. J. a. B., 2017. Support builds for watered-down version of Glass-Steagall law. Financial Times Journal, pp. 01-04.

Lin, M., 2017. Glass-Steagall Act: Did Its Repeal Cause the Financial Crisis?. Journal of top investment bankers, pp. 01-05.

Mahoney, P. G., 2016. DEREGULATION AND THE SUBPRIME CRISIS. University of Virginia School of Law, 2(1), pp. 01-47.

Sherman, H. D., 2016. Where Financial Reporting Still Falls Short: Effect of US Glass-Steagall Act. [Online]

Written by

Md. Shadequr Rahaman

Email: [email protected]

Effect of US Glass-Steagall Act

Leave a Reply

Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: