I have to admit that I was not a big fan of the forced separation between investment banking and commercial banking along the lines of the Glass-Steagall Act in the US. I do not like restrictions to contractual freedom, unless I see a compelling argument that the free market gets it wrong. Nor did I buy the argument that the removal of Glass- Steagall contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. The banks that were at the forefront of the crisis – Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, Countrywide – were either pure investment banks or pure commercial banks. The ability to merge the two types was crucial in mounting swift rescues to stabilise the system – such as the acquisition of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan and of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America.
我必须承认，自己过去并不怎么认同《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》(Glass-Steagall Act)在美国国内强制分隔投资银行业务与商业银行业务的分业经营理念。我不赞成限制契约自由，除非能有强有力的证据使我相信自由市场机制存在问题。我也不同意有关废除《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》之举促成了2008年金融危机的观点。贝尔斯登(Bear Stearns)、雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)、华盛顿互惠银行(Washington Mutual)、Countrywide等受此次危机冲击最大的银行，都是纯粹的投资银行或纯粹的商业银行。允许银行混业经营对于迅速出台纾困措施以稳定金融体系至关重要：摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)对贝尔斯登的收购、以及美国银行(Bank of America)对美林(Merrill Lynch)的收购就是例子。