Talk:Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
The book "Towards a New Paradigm in Monetary Economics" by Stiglitz deal with these actions and how they affect the bank's future. It may be a good source to further improve the article in the future. I think it wouldn't even hurt to include that info somewhere in this article's front page -Gee, i hope that makes sense.
Contents |
[edit] Page name?
According to the FTC, the name of this act is "Gramm-Leach Bliley", not "Gramm-Leach-Bliley" (note hyphen), as this article is named. I suggest moving it. Tyrel Haveman 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back... the FTC is as confused as I am about the name. Tyrel Haveman 02:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pretexting Protection
I looked through the relevant portions of the act that deal with pretexting, and nowhere could I find evidence to support the following sentence (currently in the text)
The GLBA has provisions that require the financial institution to take all precautions necessary to protect and defend the consumer and associated nonpublic information.
The only section that had anything to do with that is here - § 6825 but that only tells agencies to come up with their own plan for their jurisdiction.
I could be wrong in my interpretation, so I'm suggesting a deletion here instead of just doing it myself. Tergvelo 10:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Enforcement of GLBA
The enforcing agency of GLBA changes depending on who normally has oversite authority over the institution. It is explained in 15 USC Sec. 6805
For example, banks can be regulated by either the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, FDIC, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, etc. depending on what sort of bank they are. Credit unions are regulated by the NCUA, and investment firms (broker-dealers, investment advisors and investment companies such as mutual funds) fall under SEC jurisdiction for most regulatory regimes including GLBA. Insurance companies, agents and brokers are regulated by the Department of Insurance (or equivalent) in every state.
Most other financial institutions, such as mortgage brokers, are overseen by the Federal Trade Commission.
The enforcement section of the article should be updated to reflect 15 USC Sec. 6805 to avoid readers all going to the FTC site and getting overly vague guidance.
Ntokb3 16:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Financial Institution Privacy Protection Act of 2003
The Financial Institution Privacy Protection Act of 2003 was never signed into law. The enforcement section of this article should be scrapped and rewritten. Ntokb3 17:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I concur in this suggestion. I was thoroughly confused by the purported civil penalties since I had not seem them anywhere in the current text of the Act. Further research revealed that the article is in error - Act never put on the books. I have deleted the section on the Financial Institution Privacy Protection Act of 2003. TheTriumvir (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Technical illegality
I find it highly dubious that the Department of Justice would allow a merger could exist that would blatantly violate Glass-Steagall. Surely there is something else to the story (i.e. lawyers arguing that Glass-Steagall didn't apply, an legal ambiguity, etc. etc.)
Roadrunner 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the writer has become confused about Glass-Steagall, which did prevent commercial banks and investment banks merging and applied it to insurance companies and brokers. There was no such restriction, insurance and brokers, see the purchase by Prudential of Bache, etc. in the 1980's. Whether allowing it was a good thing is a matter for a different discussions. It was true, see Sandy Weill's biography, that when Citibank agreed to acquire Travelers the merger was prohibited, but a means was found to do it, Travelers being the surviving entity, and exemption was applied for. THere was, if memory is correct, two years in which the underlying law needed to change, and they made it just within the time frams.
SBWyman
SBWyman is right, here's an article that explains how Glass-Steagall was repealed and how Citibank fits in: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/II07Dj01.html 99.245.173.200 09:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Political Questions
It might be interesting to know what the votes for this were in both houses, whether there was a veto-proof majority, what the president's position was, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.239.161 (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
