Talk:Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The book "Towards a New Paradigm in Monetary Economics" by Stiglitz deal with these actions and how they affect the bank's future. It may be a good source to further improve the article in the future. I think it wouldn't even hurt to include that info somewhere in this article's front page -Gee, i hope that makes sense.

Page name?[edit]

According to the FTC, the name of this act is "Gramm-Leach Bliley", not "Gramm-Leach-Bliley" (note hyphen), as this article is named. I suggest moving it. Tyrel Haveman 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I take that back... the FTC is as confused as I am about the name. Tyrel Haveman 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretexting Protection[edit]

I looked through the relevant portions of the act that deal with pretexting, and nowhere could I find evidence to support the following sentence (currently in the text)

The GLBA has provisions that require the financial institution to take all precautions necessary to protect and defend the consumer and associated nonpublic information.

The only section that had anything to do with that is here - § 6825 but that only tells agencies to come up with their own plan for their jurisdiction.
I could be wrong in my interpretation, so I'm suggesting a deletion here instead of just doing it myself. Tergvelo 10:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of GLBA[edit]

The enforcing agency of GLBA changes depending on who normally has oversite authority over the institution. It is explained in 15 USC Sec. 6805

For example, banks can be regulated by either the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, FDIC, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, etc. depending on what sort of bank they are. Credit unions are regulated by the NCUA, and investment firms (broker-dealers, investment advisors and investment companies such as mutual funds) fall under SEC jurisdiction for most regulatory regimes including GLBA. Insurance companies, agents and brokers are regulated by the Department of Insurance (or equivalent) in every state.

Most other financial institutions, such as mortgage brokers, are overseen by the Federal Trade Commission.

The enforcement section of the article should be updated to reflect 15 USC Sec. 6805 to avoid readers all going to the FTC site and getting overly vague guidance.

Ntokb3 16:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Institution Privacy Protection Act of 2003[edit]

The Financial Institution Privacy Protection Act of 2003 was never signed into law. The enforcement section of this article should be scrapped and rewritten. Ntokb3 17:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur in this suggestion. I was thoroughly confused by the purported civil penalties since I had not seem them anywhere in the current text of the Act. Further research revealed that the article is in error - Act never put on the books. I have deleted the section on the Financial Institution Privacy Protection Act of 2003. TheTriumvir (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical illegality[edit]

I find it highly dubious that the Department of Justice would allow a merger could exist that would blatantly violate Glass-Steagall. Surely there is something else to the story (i.e. lawyers arguing that Glass-Steagall didn't apply, an legal ambiguity, etc. etc.)


Roadrunner 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the writer has become confused about Glass-Steagall, which did prevent commercial banks and investment banks merging and applied it to insurance companies and brokers. There was no such restriction, insurance and brokers, see the purchase by Prudential of Bache, etc. in the 1980's. Whether allowing it was a good thing is a matter for a different discussions. It was true, see Sandy Weill's biography, that when Citibank agreed to acquire Travelers the merger was prohibited, but a means was found to do it, Travelers being the surviving entity, and exemption was applied for. THere was, if memory is correct, two years in which the underlying law needed to change, and they made it just within the time frams.

SBWyman


SBWyman is right, here's an article that explains how Glass-Steagall was repealed and how Citibank fits in: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/II07Dj01.html 99.245.173.200 09:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political Questions[edit]

It might be interesting to know what the votes for this were in both houses, whether there was a veto-proof majority, what the president's position was, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.239.161 (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politically speaking, you should look back at the 1994 Bank Reform Act, because that is where the real trouble lies. Under the BRA, the rules were changed to allow banks to buy out other banks. We had 25,000 state and Federally chartered banks in the US in 1994. After the BRA, 10,000 of those banks were gobbled up by what are now called "super regionals", Wachovia, WaMu, Chase, etc. Whenever someone wants to sell something, they "puff" the object in order to maximize their price. 10,000 banks were puffed and some of them weren't nearly as solid as the sellers represented them to be. So, instead of three or four Small Banks going bust in a BIG way, they get gobbled up and made part of the super regional bank that just barely goes bust. End result is that all the depositors of the super regional are hurt and not just the depositors of the overvalued Small Bank. The banking lobby was pushing for this since the 1980's. It didn't pass under Reagan, who had a GOP senate for 6 of his 8 years and it didn't pass under Bush during his 4 years. It passed less than two years after Clinton was sworn in with a Democrat Congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPZingher (talk • contribs) 14:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be something to address in the 1994 Bank Reform Act page, however this is the entry for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.201.212 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CRA Restrictions[edit]

I'm not very good at this whole wiki business. Could someone review my addition to the restrictions regarding the CRA, and, if needed, correct the text. I don't know the proper legal language, and someone more knowledgable of the correct terminology maybe able to make it more exact (for example, the word 'financial institution' is preferred to the word 'bank').--213.106.141.189 (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCain References[edit]

Removed references to McCain voting/ non voting on the bill. It adds nothing to the article that will not be relavant in a couple of months. Jamesdcarroll (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'm also interested in how Joe Biden (among others) voted (Palin and Obama were of course involved in state & local government rather than Congress at the time.) And I came here partly to see how the parties divided in sponsoring, opposing and passing this bill, so if you could restore the roll calls (or their easier-to-read equivalents at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress), I and others would be grateful. Whether they should be footnotes or in Further reading or External links is a matter of judgement. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing McCain "no voting on the bill" is the same attempt as suggestions that negative comments against Senator Obama..should be disregarded...should not we the voters know everything? besides this are, public historical records. FrankPratts (talk) 19:14 Oct 12 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry, the most important roll calls are fully documented in the footnotes. Sen. McCain didn't vote on the final roll call; otherwise Senators McCain and Biden voted with the majority of their caucuses. Those who didn't are listed (e.g. Richard Shelby and Ernest Hollings). I haven't looked at the Senators' own Wikipedia pages, but perhaps that's the most relevant place for individual voting records. (One can only speculate how Senators Obama and Clinton would have voted had they been in the Senate in 1999.) Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Fred Thompson (I think), Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and a couple of other 2008 Presidential candidates were in Congress at the time; I don't know if it's worth breaking out their votes as a group as opposed to other, political, regional or social classifications.
On the other hand, perhaps there are significant amendments (like one proposed by Sen. Shelby with Democratic support before he voted against the final bill) or procedural motions that ought to be included. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms[edit]

I believe we can do a lot better in this section. One reference (Kuttner) was iffy, barely touching on Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Moreover, Kuttner is not an academic and is definitely a partisan source- and I think we should keep partisan arguments off this article (we'd have to go looking for partisan defences, etc.) The other reference, which I've kept for the time being, actually explains the nature of the criticism, which is good- however, the criticism is from Austrian school economists, who definitely don't represent the bulk of economic thought. If anyone knows of better references, we should get them in. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the header and provided a defense statement for the passage of the bill and its effect on the current crisis. Frankly I think the section should be deleted as it speaks to a current event, but at least there is balance. Jamesdcarroll (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I find this section totally confusing. Why is Clinton in there ? Considering the massive number of voices that say GLBA caused the entire collapse you have two quotes from non experts ( one being the president who signed it and then the person who wrote it ) Is that "balance " ? I think it should remain but balanced with actual economic data not partisan opinion. I've included a section on repealing Glass-Steagall. WendyP123 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Gramm is, I believe, an economist or teacher of economics. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gramm is wrong, If the big banks and corporations buy out all other businesses, then Capitalism will not function properly. South Bay (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This statement under "Safeguards Rule" is fairly editorialistic: This rule is intended to do what most businesses should already be doing: protecting their clients. grimmfarmer —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Ditto this, under "Pretexting protection": In fact, the evaluation of the effectiveness of such employee training probably should include a follow-up program of random spot-checks, "outside the classroom", after completion of the initial employee training, in order to check on the resistance of a given (randomly chosen) student to various types of "social engineering" – perhaps even designed to focus attention on any new wrinkle that might have arisen after the initial effort to "develop" the curriculum for such employee training. grimmfarmer

Also, the opening sentence of "Pretexting protection" could be rewritten as follows, for improved clarity: Pretexting (sometimes referred to as "social engineering") occurs when someone lacking the proper authority attempts to gain access to personal nonpublic information through impersonation, persuasion, or other deceptive means. grimmfarmer

Only Mid-Importance?[edit]

It seems that if GLB hadn't been passed, the current financial crisis would have been averted. How can this article not be considered of high importance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.194.13 (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree with this more. 173.227.176.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

He who has the gold makes the rules.

That would be the central bankers. They control the nations credit...No? This act legalized fraud. Fire up the bubble machine. One guys name is literally LEACH. Will Sync — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.94.66 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms Error[edit]

The Criticisms section includes a comment that GLBA is responsible for deregulating based on definitions it supplied for Securities acts of 1933 and 1934. The references supplied ONLY show that these definitions were provided by this act, and not that the new act was responsible for them not being regulated. If I understand my finance history correctly, swaps were ALREADY free from regulation because they are private contracts and not subject to SEC regulation. Only publicly traded instruments are subject to SEC. 76.185.190.206 (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)DBarker[reply]

GLBA had nothing to do with derivatives[edit]

The GLBA often gets mixed up with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

In this article under the Criticisms Section "Former President Bill Clinton said of the advice he received from both of his two U.S. Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, "On derivatives, yeah, I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take it." He was responding to a question from ABC News' Jake Tapper on April 17, 2010 about the advice he had received about the deregulation of commercial and investment banking.[30]".

This seems to contradict another Clinton quote in the Defense Section "I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.... On the Glass–Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence." [32]

I believe that the first Clinton quote refers to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act not the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. --Mikehira (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What were the mergers?[edit]

Is there a list of mergers made possible after passage of the GLB? The article notes the Citi merger with Solomon-Smith-Barney. Were there others that followed? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement in regards to doing well.[edit]

The act was designed so that insurance companies could use client deposits to cover debts incurred that the insurance company itself could not cover. Hurricanes, earthquakes, many another facet where the cost of insurance became too high, insurance clients walked out, and the total of business drying up to such an extent to no longer be able to cost employees, nor their own lifestyles. Have some balls, place what it was, not these ´feel good´ scared of a lawsuit statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.174.60 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act&oldid=1207381159"