If the FedGov wanted to deregulate banks, besides lifting the prohibition on universal banking (investment bank and commercial bank marriages) they should have also lifted FDIC "insurance" for commercial bank deposits, or, alternatively, separated FDIC from the FedGov balance sheet. (Note that Glass-Steagall was defanged in two phases: DIDMCA in 1980 and Gramm-Leach-Blilely in 1999. Yes, that's Phil Gramm of McCain fame.) FDIC is just a psychological mind trick because the deposit insurance claims are ultimately a liability of the FedGov and, by extension, the U.S. taxpayer.
The only problem there is that dramatically altering FDIC "insurance" could have sparked a bank run. (Ultimately, if FDIC ever fails outright and the FedGov's and FedReserve's balance sheets become so thoroughly polluted by garbage, there could be a run on the dollar, but that's a different story.) The fact that the idiots in Congress (Dodd, Schumer, and Barney Frank included) started playing politically correct games of forcing banks to lend to everyone, including unqualified borrowers, didn't really help. Add effectively unregulated pools of capital (hedge funds) and very opaque novelty financial instruments (derivatives) to the mix and you get a ticking time bomb.
As a side note, Glass-Steagall did NOT prohibit commercial banks from engaging in dealing of municipal securities. So, even without Gramm-Leach-Bliley, if this mortgage brouhaha had hit the fan and hurt municipalities' abilities to levy property taxes, the pain could still have been felt on commercial banks' balance sheets.
1. Do you include Put & Call Options in your definition of "derivatives?"
2. How 'bout "naked shorts?"
3. How 'bout anything "leveraged" in securities markets?
By the way, I remember Dodd being lobbied even more heavily than Graham to passing the death knell to "the tie that binds" banks!!! (even if it did have Graham's name on it)
I really enjoy your posts and commentary! Bravo!! Encore!!!