The Glass-Steagall Act's Loss is the Community Reinvestment Act's Gain

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) of 1999,the regulatory bodies responsible for the CRA. As a
repealed the portion of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933result, banks could not make the seemingly lucrative
that prohibited banks from consolidating withacquisition of investment houses without meeting the
investment houses while the GLBA also expanded therequisite quota of higher risk CRA loans, which only
influence of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977added more incentive for banks to make high-risk
which requires banks to make loans to higher-riskloans and delve deeper into the sub-prime mortgage
borrowers. Although the lethal economic brewbusiness.
imposed by the GLBA was not exposed immediatelyThe Creation of the First Financial Supermarket
after its passage due to the rapid appreciation of bothCitibank, having been the lead lobbying force behind the
the housing and securities markets shortly thereafter,repeal of Glass-Stegall, had attempted to permanently
the financial crises that began to shake the world'smerge with the three investment houses of
economic foundations in late 2007 caused manySmith-Barney, Shearson and Primerica for several
experts to begin to point back to this piece of 1999years. Upon Glass-Stegall's repeal in late 1999, Citibank
legislation as its foremost catalyst.immediately made the mergers permanent under a
The Glass-Steagall Actnew financial supermarket known as Citigroup. Former
Enacted in the wake of the Great Depression, theClinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was
Glass-Steagall Act established the Federal Depositimmediately rewarded for his efforts as the key
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and established a varietyproponent for the repeal of Glass-Steagall in
of banking reforms that including a provision prohibitingNovember of 1999 by being appointed to the Board of
banks from owning other financial companies. AfterDirectors at Citigroup just as the Clinton Administration
the Untied States Congress held numerous hearings towas leaving office in December of that same year. In
investigate the causes of the 1929 market crash, itfact, Forbes reported that Rubin received over $17
was determined that the mixing of the commercial andmillion in compensation and $33 million in stock options
investment banking industries in the 1920s generated abefore resigning as Chairman of the Board for a now
high degree of fraud and conflicts of interest infinancially distressed Citigroup in January of 2009. Not
securities activities. The 1933 Congress alsoso surprisingly, Marketwatch listed Rubin as one of the
prophetically reasoned that due to the inherent risks"10 most unethical people in business" shortly
associated with securities markets, securities lossesthereafter.
could cause capitalization problems for banks andBanking Fusion Leads to Economic Fallout
threaten the integrity of bank deposits. In turn, becauseAs feared by the supporters of Glass-Steagall and
the federal government insures these deposits, theycritics of the CRA, Citigroup's losses from securities
would be responsible for paying tremendous sums ifactivities related to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and
banks were to deplete deposits as a result ofthe rampant financial distress that followed resulted in
securities losses.tens of billions of dollars of federal government
The Community Reinvestment Actsupport. Unfortunately, Citigroup was not alone in the
The purpose of the Community Reinvestment Act ofpost-1999 merger, securities losses and government
1977 (CRA) was to encourage commercial banks tobailout category: Wachovia Bank acquired both A.G.
make loans in low and moderate income areas and toEdwards and Golden West, Bank of America
prohibit the discriminatory refusal of banks to lend inpurchased Merril Lynch and Countrywide, J.P Morgan
these neighborhoods known as "redlining". Subsequentbought both Chase and Bear Stearns, and the list goes
CRA regulatory changes, such as implementing aon.
quota-based lending requirement system for banks,When the GLBA removed the protective walls
resulted in $467 billion in loans by CRA lenders to lowbetween commercial and investment banks that
and medium income borrowers between 1993 andGlass-Steagall had previously held firmly in place, there
1998 according to statistics reported by the U.S.was nothing preventing bank dealmakers from
Department of the Treasury in April of 2000. Thecolluding with investment house analysts to show
Treasury Department further reported that loans topositive results for clients to enhance their collective
these borrowers rose by 39% in the same period ofbottom lines. Banks no longer needed to concern
time. In an article for the New York Post, notedthemselves with the scrutiny imposed by neutral
economist Stan Liebowitz claimed that the expansionthird-party security analysts when the level of due
of the CRA's reach in the 1990s encouraged adiligence from analysts within their own company is
loosening of lending standards throughout the bankingmuch more favorable. Investment houses could freely
industry. Similarly, Austrian economist Russell Robertsmix sub-prime CRA mortgage debt with normal prime
wrote in a Wall Street Journal essay that CRAloans into a collateralized debt obligations (CDOs)
promoted low-income housing by pressuring lendingbefore selling them off as mortgage-backed securities
institutions to lend to people who would otherwise bethrough a different arm of the same financial institution.
rejected as a bad credit risk.These financial supermarkets could actually make their
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Actrequisite quotas of high-risk CRA loans and pass them
After years of lobbying by the banking industry toon to investors with greater ease.
repeal the provisions of Glass-Steagall that erected aThe transparency and scrutiny created when one
wall between commercial and investment banks, incompany investigates, negotiates and ultimately
1999 President Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robertpurchases from another company was dissolved. Only
Rubin took the lead in urging fellow liberals in Congressthose with conflicts of interest were permitted to
to join their counterparts across the aisle to ultimatelyweigh in, but why should they when they all stand to
pass the GLBA by bipartisan votes of 90-8 in themake the enormous profits realized in the financial
Senate and 362-57 in the House of Representatives.industry prior to 2008? Hopefully, once the federal
President Clinton signed the bill into law on Novembergovernment completes its infusion of trillions of dollars
12, 1999, but did so only after demanding that theinto these ailing financial supermarkets, it can start to
GLBA require that mergers between commercialfix the core problem by repealing the GLBA and
banks and investment houses be strictly examined byrebuilding Glass-Steagall's walls.