Levitt: “I regret my support in doing away with Glass-Steagall”

Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, talks about JP Morgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon’s testimony before the Senate Banking Committee today. He is conflicted as he now serves as an advisor to Goldman Sachs and other “too big banks”, but he also freely admits that banks today are too big to regulate and manage and that he regrets his support when he was SEC chairman in doing away with Glass-Steagall. At least he admits that banks today got too big and complicated because they were under-regulated and given too much congressional lea-way. Interesting discussion. Here is a direct link.

This entry was posted in Main Page. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Levitt: “I regret my support in doing away with Glass-Steagall”

  1. michael says:

    probably reasonable to assume that “Jamie” will be taking Arthur out for lunch and a few guffaws with dessert. Controlled madness ….speaking of controlled madness (manipulation) here is a chart for Cory compliments of Zero Hedge….

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2012/06/20120619_GoldVIX.png

  2. John says:

    I’m getting tired of these eminences grises like Levitt and Greenspan coming out in public and issuing their mea culpas. These people helped cause the problem, not because they were misguided or ignorant, but because they were (and still are) in bed with the banks. When Brooksley Born of the CFTC tried to warn financial regulators about the risks with derivatives back in the ’90s, it was men like Levitt who slapped her into submission, because her suggestions would interfere with bank profits.

    These people should not be listened to. They should be shunned. Levitt says Dimon’s testimony is congressional theatre. You’re damn right it is. But Levitt is part of the show.

    Our own Mark Carney is another one. Lately he’s been jawboning Canadians with warnings about their debt levels. Yet BoC policy was largely responsible for the housing mania in Canada. It’s like warning someone that TNT is highly explosive AFTER they blow themselves up.

    Keep listening at your peril. Or learn what’s really going on and take steps to protect yourself.

  3. Floyd says:

    Technically speaking, banks are not under-regulated. They are over-regulated.

    If it wasn’t for regulation, FRB would be a crime(!), money-printing would be a crime(!), grand-manipulation of interest rates would be probably a crime, and none of these institutions would be bailed out.
    TARP would not have happened without regulation either.
    ETC, ETC, ETC.

    Indeed they are under regulated – given a weird universe in which FRB is legal (apparently only for banks), money printing is praised (only when the Fed does it, I’m regrettably prohibited from this beneficial practice), and tax payer’s money is awarded to these intuitions upon perceived need.

    Observe, however, that finance is so complex that no amount of regulation can possibly seal all the methods to abuse those special privileges mentioned above (FRB, manipulation of interest rates and stock of money, money printing, and access to the public fund upon trouble).

  4. John says:

    They should be jailed ( at best ).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.