Bring Back Glass-Steagall Good morning. Never one to mince words, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker let loose this week in Sussex England. He spoke at an exclusive meeting of financial regulators and high-level bankers, saying that there is very little evidence that innovation in the financial markets has had any visible effect on economic productivity. Then he told the stunned audience that the single most important contribution any of them had made in the last 25 years was the automatic teller machines which were at least "useful." Go Paul! - I could hardly agree more. In their rush to develop "innovative" new financial products, bankers the world over forgot that they're supposed to be safeguarding our money. They also completely ignored the fact that banks are enablers, not risk-takers. And, in doing so, they became part of the "problem." In reality, we should use banks for three things: - Storing reserves
- Getting loans and
- Executing financial transactions
In that sense, banks are more akin to public utilities than profit institutions - a view incidentally I share with Mr. Volcker, George Soros and a few others. If Washington wants to get serious about avoiding a second bubble and an even "Greater Depression," let's bring back elements of the Glass-Steagall Act which, in case you don't recall your history class, was a Depression-era law that separated Main Street's banking from Wall Street's banking. That way, we specifically limit the kinds of risk taking that Wall Street seems to thrive on by separating it from institutions charged with safeguarding taxpayer deposits. You might not think this is a big deal or that it's a problem in the first place. But it is. Following the global meltdown, the shotgun marriages and bailout legislation, the nation's four biggest banks - JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo - now control more than two-fifths of all bank deposits, more than 66% of all credit card accounts, and over half of all mortgages in this country. They also run trillions of dollars in risky trading ventures that, as things stand, can come right back and blow up in our faces...again. In other words, the risks we face now are actually higher in terms of financial concentration than they were before the crisis. And that's as much as anything what Volcker was driving at when he slammed the bankers for "innovation." I believe we simply need to keep risk where it belongs - on Wall Street - and security where it matters - on Main Street. That way, if the derivatives cowboys want to take obscene risks, they can without driving the rest of us to the brink of financial oblivion. As I have maintained since the beginning of this crisis, "too big to fail" is a myth. The real question is who's too big to survive. Best regards, Keith Editor's Note: In one easy lesson after another, Money Morning's Keith Fitz-Gerald shows you how to profit from the enormous shift in the world economy. His 40-plus "global gainer" starter picks alone is worth the price of admission. Some people already following Keith's advice are making 100% to 500% more than the "ordinary" investor. It makes a great holiday gift! |