So naturally, given the broad-based success of the repeal, there's no interest in reviving it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_legislation
The repeal passed the Senate on a near party line vote (R over D), sponsored by 3 Republicans, and passed the House will nearly all R and 2/3 of D.
Clinton could have vetoed it, though, since the Senate didn't have a two-thirds majority.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93...
Of course, looking to the future from the future, a veto would likely be irrelevant since Bush took over a year and a half later.
Here's a snippet from his signing speech.
>You heard Senator Gramm characterize this bill as a victory for freedom and free markets. And Congressman LaFalce characterized this bill as a victory for consumer protection. And both of them are right. And I have always believed that one required the other. It is true that the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate for the economy in which we live.
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/l...
Indeed, what I meant to say was "under" and not "by". My bad. Too late to edit.
You might want to do a little reading on the repeal of sections of Dodd Frank.
>The measure’s framework is expected to eventually pass the Senate thanks to a dozen finance-friendly and swing-state Democrats who have openly announced their co-sponsorship. With Republicans in control of the House, the bill seems destined to reach President Donald Trump’s desk this year.
https://newrepublic.com/article/147247/democrats-helping-tru...
More like time to stop propping them up. If the government hadn't stepped in to save them during the last crisis, a bunch of those banks would have gone the way of Lehman Brothers.
The issue comes back to foreign competition. As much as Glass-Steagall made sense to some, it was repealed because US banks faced increasing competition from European banks that were able to bundle advisory with retail bank deposits. Unless everyone takes similar position globally (or we block foreign bank access to our markets) it’s hard to justify a handicap on the home team.
Whistleblower: Wall Street Has Engaged in Widespread Manipulation of Mortgage Funds [1].
Commercial real-estate was already going to absolutely hammered.
> Some of the world’s biggest banks — including Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank — as well as other lenders have engaged in a systematic fraud that allowed them to award borrowers bigger loans than were supported by their true financials, according to a previously unreported whistleblower complaint submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission last year.
> Whereas the fraud during the last crisis was in residential mortgages, the complaint claims this time it’s happening in commercial properties like office buildings, apartment complexes and retail centers. The complaint focuses on the loans that are gathered into pools whose worth can exceed $1 billion and turned into bonds sold to investors, known as CMBS (for commercial mortgage-backed securities).
> Lenders and securities issuers have regularly altered financial data for commercial properties “without justification,” the complaint asserts, in ways that make the properties appear more valuable, and borrowers more creditworthy, than they actually are. As a result, it alleges, borrowers have qualified for commercial loans they normally would not have, with the investors who bought securities birthed from those loans none the wiser.
> ProPublica closely examined six loans that were part of CMBS in recent years to see if their data resembles the pattern described by the whistleblower. What we found matched the allegations: The historical profits reported for some buildings were listed as much as 30% higher than the profits previously reported for the same buildings and same years when the property was part of an earlier CMBS. As a rough analogy, imagine a homeowner having stated in a mortgage application that his 2017 income was $100,000 only to claim during a later refinancing that his 2017 income was $130,000 — without acknowledging or explaining the change.
> It’s “highly questionable” to alter past profits with no apparent explanation, said John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School and an expert in securities regulation. “I don’t understand why you can do that.”
Exact same trick as last time, just last time residential and this time commercial.
Time to start anti-trust breaking up the 'too big to fail' banks, they are a national security issue and ultimately a bad actor in fair markets.
Commercial mortgage backed securities are severely overvalued since deregulation after the Great Recession largely because people weren't watching commercial as much and there was a hypernormalization of the idea that the economy was somehow good. All it was was over leveraging, opportunities zones that have less tax revenues if any, that led to stagnation in other areas, so other loans were taken out on future good economic conditions that will not exist for years if not a decade now.
The carnage is going to be immense with the attack vectors of less retail, restaurants going under, less consumers buying physical places, less people and retail/restaurants able to pay rents to landlords that then owe these commercial real estate entities, less office need with more remote, etc etc.
Retail was already on a downtrend but valuations and loans were going up in commercial real estate. This is going to be a problem.
The only area that might be possible is more commercial real estate that is more about moving products back to the US but that really is a fantasy in many areas.
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/whistleblower-wall-street...