SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 50% Gains Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Vosilla who wrote (94165)9/18/2010 9:21:50 AM
From: Dale BakerRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 118717
 
Yes a HUGE part of it could have been avoided though it's possible that stand alone investment banks could have done the same stuff, and AIG could still have operated in the gaps between insurance regulators.

I have no doubt that Washington could have stepped in and shut it off or kept it under control if they had cared to. But that was not the mood at the time.



To: John Vosilla who wrote (94165)9/18/2010 12:22:25 PM
From: tom popeRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 118717
 
One of the ironies of the repeal was that commercial banks, in those days, made loans and kept the risk. And, like ConIll, sometimes went under because of bad loan bets. An attraction of repealing G-S was that it would allow banks to operate with less balance sheet risk, having underwritten and sold off its financings.

the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News