Talk:Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act

message: 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)
thread_title: Page name?

message: 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)
thread_title: Pretexting Protection

message: 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)
thread_title: Enforcement of GLBA

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Financial Institution Privacy Protection Act of 2003 

message: 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)
thread_title: Technical illegality

message: 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)
thread_title: Political Questions

message: I'm not very good at this whole wiki business. Could someone review my addition to the restrictions regarding the CRA, and, if needed, correct the text. I don't know the proper legal language, and someone more knowledgable of the correct terminology maybe able to make it more exact (for example, the word 'financial institution' is preferred to the word 'bank').--213.106.141.189 (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CRA Restrictions

message: I believe we can do a lot better in this section.  One reference (Kuttner) was iffy, barely touching on Gramm-Leach-Bliley.  Moreover, Kuttner is not an academic and is definitely a partisan source- and I think we should keep partisan arguments off this article (we'd have to go looking for partisan defences, etc.)  The other reference, which I've kept for the time being, actually explains the nature of the criticism, which is good- however, the criticism is from Austrian school economists, who definitely don't represent the bulk of economic thought.  If anyone knows of better references, we should get them in.  Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this section totally confusing. Why is Clinton in there ? Considering the massive number of voices that say GLBA caused the entire collapse you have two quotes from non experts ( one being the president who signed it and then the person who wrote it ) Is that "balance " ?  I think it should remain but balanced with actual economic data not partisan opinion.  I've included a section on repealing Glass-Steagall. WendyP123 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Phil Gramm is, I believe, an economist or teacher of economics. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gramm is wrong, If the big banks and corporations buy out all other businesses, then Capitalism will not function properly. South Bay (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: It seems that if GLB hadn't been passed, the current financial crisis would have been averted.  How can this article not be considered of high importance?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.194.13 (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Only Mid-Importance?

message: The Criticisms section includes a comment that GLBA is responsible for deregulating based on definitions it supplied for Securities acts of 1933 and 1934.  The references supplied ONLY show that these definitions were provided by this act, and not that the new act was responsible for them not being regulated.  If I understand my finance history correctly, swaps were ALREADY free from regulation because they are private contracts and not subject to SEC regulation.  Only publicly traded instruments are subject to SEC.
76.185.190.206 (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms Error 

message: The GLBA often gets mixed up with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
In this article under the Criticisms Section
"Former President Bill Clinton said of the advice he received from both of his two U.S. Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, "On derivatives, yeah, I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take it." He was responding to a question from ABC News' Jake Tapper on April 17, 2010 about the advice he had received about the deregulation of commercial and investment banking.[30]".
This seems to contradict another Clinton quote in the Defense Section
"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.... On the Glass–Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence." [32]
I believe that the first Clinton quote refers to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act not the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.
--Mikehira (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GLBA had nothing to do with derivatives 

message: Is there a list of mergers made possible after passage of the GLB? The article notes the Citi merger with Solomon-Smith-Barney. Were there others that followed? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What were the mergers? 

message: The act was designed so that insurance companies could use client deposits to cover debts incurred that the insurance company itself could not cover. Hurricanes, earthquakes, many another facet where the cost of insurance became too high, insurance clients walked out, and the total of business drying up to such an extent to no longer be able to cost employees, nor their own lifestyles. Have some balls, place what it was, not these ´feel good´ scared of a lawsuit statements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.174.60 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement in regards to doing well. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109212056/http://www.arkbar.com/Ark_Lawyer_Mag/Articles/UsuryWinter04.html to http://www.arkbar.com/Ark_Lawyer_Mag/Articles/UsuryWinter04.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified