Is the Glass-Steagall Act Justified? A Study of the U.S. Experience with Universal Banking before 1933.

S-Tier
Journal: American Economic Review
Year: 1994
Volume: 84
Issue: 4
Pages: 810-32

Authors (2)

Kroszner, Randall S (not in RePEc) Rajan, Raghuram G (University of Chicago)

Score contribution per author:

4.022 = (α=2.01 / 2 authors) × 4.0x S-tier

α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count

Abstract

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 removed commercial banks from the securities underwriting business. The authors evaluate the argument for the separation of commercial and investment banking that conflicts of interest induce commercial banks to fool the public into investing in securities which turn out to be of low quality. A comparison of the performance of securities underwritten by commercial and investment banks prior to the act shows no evidence of this. Instead, the public appears to have rationally accounted for the possibility of conflicts of interest and this appears to have constrained the banks to underwrite high-quality securities. Copyright 1994 by American Economic Association.

Technical Details

RePEc Handle
repec:aea:aecrev:v:84:y:1994:i:4:p:810-32
Journal Field
General
Author Count
2
Added to Database
2026-01-29