The Not-So-Triumphant Return of Glass-Steagall

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The unlikely duo of John McCain and Elizabeth Warren want to bring back Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law that split up commercial banking and investment banking. The basic idea behind this is sound: commercial banks are insured by taxpayer dollars, so they should be conservatively run. Investment banks, which make lots of risky bets, should be on their own.

But I’ve never been much of a fan of bringing back Glass-Steagall. There are several reasons, but I really only need one: in practice, its repeal doesn’t seem to have made any difference. Take a look at the two most serious bank failures in 2008: Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. They were both pure investment banks. IndyMac and Countrywide were pure commercial banks. Wachovia did both commercial and investment banking. AIG was an insurance company. Merrill Lynch was a pure investment bank that got rescued by combining it with Bank of America.

Now take a look at the strongest banks in 2008. JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo combined commercial and investment banking. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were pure investment banks.

Basically, I just don’t see a trend here. Both pure and combined banks failed in 2008, and both pure and combined banks succeeded. And that’s without even getting into the shadow banking system, where many of the problems of the financial crisis originated.

I’m in favor of smaller banks, and I suppose that splitting up the big universal banks would accomplish that. But either Congress is willing to split up the big banks or it isn’t. If it’s not, then the McCain-Warren bill won’t pass. If it is, there are far better ways of doing it.

For my money, I wouldn’t bother at this point. I’d simply mandate higher capital requirements for everyone, and much higher capital requirements for the biggest banks on a sliding scale. That would automatically put pressure on banks to stay smaller, and it would make them safer regardless of their size. It’s a better, simpler way to go.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend