logo

Too Big To Fail: Why The Big Banks Should Be Broken Up, But Why The White House And Congress Don't Want To
By: Robert Reich   Sunday, October 25, 2009 11:52 PM

Vote for next session
The next market session will close:

And now there are five -- five Wall Street behemoths, bigger than they were before the Great Meltdown, paying fatter salaries and bonuses to retain their so-called"talent," and raking in huge profits. The biggest difference between now and last October is these biggies didn't know then that they were too big to fail and the government would bail them out if they got into trouble. Now they do. And like a giant, gawking adolescent who's just discovered he can crash the Lexus convertible his rich dad gave him and the next morning have a new one waiting in his driveway courtesy of a dad who can't say no, the biggies will drive even faster now, taking even bigger risks.

What to do? Two ideas are floating around Washington, but only one is supported by the Treasury and the White House. Unfortunately, it's the wrong one.

The right idea is to break up the giant banks. I don't often agree with Alan Greenspan but he was right when he said last week that "(i)f they're too big to fail, they're too big." Greenspan noted that the government broke up Standard Oil in 1911, and what happened? "The individual parts became more valuable than the whole. Maybe that's what we need to do." (Historic footnote: Had Greenspan not supported in 1999 Congress's repeal of the Glass Stagall Act, which separated investment from commercial banking, we wouldn't be in the soup we're in to begin with.)

Former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, whose only problem is he's much too tall, last week told the New York Times he'd like to see the restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act provisions that would separate the financial giants' deposit-taking activities from their investment and trading businesses. If this separation went into effect, JPMorgan (JPM) Chase would have to give up the trading operations acquired from Bear Stearns (BSC). Bank of America (BAC) and Merrill Lynch (ML) would go back to being separate companies. And Goldman Sachs (GS) could no longer be a bank holding company.

But the Obama Administration doesn't agree with either Greenspan or Volcker. While it admits it doesn't want another bank bailout, its solution to the "too big to fail" problem doesn't go nearly far enough. In fact, it doesn't really go anywhere. The Administration would wait until a giant bank was in danger of failing and then put it into a process akin to bankruptcy.

Next Page >>12

(0)
No Comments
Post Comment
Name:  
Alert for new comments:
Your email:
Your Website:
Title:
Comments:
   
 
 
 
 
   
 

The above story is the opinion of the author only and it does not reflect iStockAnalyst opinion. Further, the author is not personally advising you regarding the suitability of the story for your investment needs. In no event iStockAnalyst will be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from or arising out of, or in connection with the use of this information. Please consult your investment advisor before making any investment decision.
  
Advertisement
Popular Articles
Related Press Releases
Advertisement
Partner Center
Recent Articles by Robert Reich



Subscribe to Email Alerts rss feed or RSS feeds rss feed for articles from more than 500 contributors, press releases, SEC filings and full text news from more than four thousand sources.
Fundamental data is provided by Zacks Investment Research, market data is provided by AlphaTrade. , and Commentary and Press Releases provided by Quotemedia