One of the great debates to emerge from the financial crisis is whether the U.S. Congress should resurrect some form of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act and bring back the separation of commercial and investment banking. It should, but not for the reasons usually cited.
To get to the heart of what went wrong with the report released yesterday by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, check out its account on page 254 of how the largest investor in a cash fund managed by Bank of America suddenly pulled out $20 billion of its money in November 2007.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and U.S. Senator Carl Levin fired opening shots ahead of a congressional hearing this week, releasing conflicting evidence of the investment bank’s tactics during the mortgage market’s collapse.
There's an old saying in journalism that there are no new stories, only new reporters. The revelation that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's old law firm used to represent the bankrupt brokerage firm MF Global Holdings is a great example.
With the ink barely dry on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission ’s assessment of the 2008 market meltdown, the group is turning to other pursuits: infighting and preparing for congressional investigations.
Whenever the leadership class feels nervous, you can count on some of them to offer the less-moneyed masses a bone to demonstrate they care. Warren Buffett says his idea of “shared sacrifice” is higher taxes on the super-rich. Only for him, this wouldn’t cost much.
White House officials and Democratic lawmakers seized on internal e-mails from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to push for curbs including a ban on proprietary trading as they brace for a Senate showdown on Wall Street oversight.