Financial Regulations: Glass-Steagall to Dodd-Frank

The modern economy depends on financial regulations to ensure market stability and defend consumers against predatory business practices. Indeed, the emergence of financial disasters often leads to the creation of new regulations designed to prevent future crises.

The transition from the Glass-Steagall Act during the Great Depression to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act illustrates financial regulators’ ability to adjust to the complexities presented by changing economic and financial conditions. Studying the evolution of financial regulations reveals the elements that shaped today’s financial systems and provides direction for upcoming regulatory initiatives.

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933

The Wall Street Crash of 1929, which was followed by the Great Depression, exposed fundamental weaknesses in the U.S. economy. In addition to wiping out stock market value and generating record unemployment, the period from 1929 to 1933 also saw more than 9,000 banks fail, costing depositors about 20% of all deposits, worth about $27 billion in today’s money.

In response, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established major changes in banking regulations. It was named after U.S. Senator Carter Glass and U.S. Representative Henry Steagall.

The Glass-Steagall Act stabilized the banking sector and rebuilt public faith in the financial system through a series of measures. For instance, the mandated division of commercial and investment banking resulted in separate business approaches and risk characteristics, reducing moral hazard and conflicts of interest.

Key Provisions

• Separation of commercial and investment banking: The Glass-Steagall Act banned commercial banks (those accepting deposits and making loans) from participating in investment banking (including securities underwriting and dealing). This was designed to stop banks from using customer deposits for speculative investments.
• Establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): The FDIC insured bank deposits with government backing, initially up to $2,500 (now $250,000), rebuilding trust in the banking system.
• Regulation of interest rates: Glass-Steagall banned banks from offering interest on checking accounts while giving the Federal Reserve power to establish maximum interest rates for savings accounts through Regulation Q. The goal was to prevent banks from offering excessive rates to attract customers and then taking on too much risk to pay interest on the deposits.

The Banking Act of 1935

The Banking Act of 1935 reorganized and consolidated the monetary policy functions of the Federal Reserve system and completed other financial-system reforms begun with Glass-Steagall.

In response to perceived failures by the central bank in handling the Great Depression, the Act set up a lasting institutional framework via the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—effectively forming an independent agency that wields significant economic power while remaining shielded from outside political influences.

Key Provisions

• Establishment of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) as the primary body responsible for monetary policy decisions in the U.S.
• Enhanced Federal Reserve authority to supervise credit conditions and control the money supply.
• Restructured Federal Reserve leadership by establishing a Board of Governors with seven members who serve 14-year terms in order to protect monetary policy from short-term political influence.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950

The Glass-Steagall Act created the FDIC, but it was the Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950 that greatly improved and modernized the deposit insurance system. Beyond simply continuing the FDIC’s insurance functions, the act formalized its role in conducting bank audits and establishing clear procedures for bailing out banks.

Key Provisions:

• Established a permanent federal deposit insurance fund while broadening the regulatory abilities of the FDIC
• Merged banking rules into a single framework and created the FDIC as an independent entity distinct from the Federal Reserve System
• Created official procedures for managing failing banks and granted the FDIC new tools to ensure banking stability through bailouts and other forms of support

The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA)

The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 was the first significant step toward financial deregulation since Glass-Steagall.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was mounting pressure to deregulate the banking sector due to increased competition and expanding non-bank consumer options (such as credit cards). The DIDMCA sought to alleviate these pressures—but it also contributed to the more lax environment that facilitated the savings and loan (S&L) crisis and later the Great Recession by allowing banks to enter new business lines without adequate supervision.

Key Provisions

• Phased out Regulation Q, resulting in the gradual removal of interest rate limits on deposits.
• Mandated that most banks hold reserves at the Federal Reserve. (Previously, only member banks were required to do so.)
• Enabled savings and loans to offer checking accounts, including interest-bearing ones, along with consumer loans and credit cards.
• The FDIC insurance limit increased from $40,000 to $100,000 per account.
• Gave permission to certain banks to set interest rates above state-imposed usury limits, and created a committee to supervise the systematic elimination of interest rate ceilings.
• The Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982 further accelerated the deregulatory trend begun by DIDMCA.

The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA)

The deregulation of the 1980s provided savings and loan banks the opportunity to venture into commercial real estate and other riskier investments beyond their traditional home mortgage businesses. The combination of poor oversight, fraudulent activities, and regional economic downturns produced widespread bank failures. The S&L crisis saw more than 1,000 thrifts fail, costing taxpayers upwards of $124 billion.

The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) was Congress’s response to both the urgent issue of resolving failed thrift institutions and the regulatory breakdowns which permitted the crisis to emerge in the first place.

Key Provisions

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999: Dismantling Glass-Steagall

By the late 1990s, developments in global markets and financial market innovations left banks feeling constrained and looking for a way to shed traditional banking regulations still in place from Glass-Steagall. They got much of what they wanted in the transformative Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act eliminated major parts of Glass-Steagall, allowing commercial banks to once again merge with investment banks as well as securities firms and insurance companies—ultimately allowing them to provide various financial services as one financial holding company. This facilitated the creation of financial giants like Citigroup and JP Morgan-Chase, and accelerated the consolidation of the financial services industry into larger, more complex institutions. 

Supporters of the GLBA claimed that deregulation brought modernization to the financial system while boosting U.S. global competitiveness. Opponents, however, believed that the removal of vital protections led directly to the reckless behaviors that resulted in the 2007-08 global financial crisis.

Key Provisions

• Established a new bank holding company classification known as the financial holding company that gained the ability to participate in all financial operations across banking, securities and insurance sectors.
• Segmented functional regulation, which directed banking activities to banking regulators, securities activities to securities regulators, and insurance activities to state insurance departments.
• Enhanced privacy protections within the act forced financial institutions to share privacy policies with customers and granted partial opt-out rights regarding information sharing with third parties.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010

The collapse of the U.S. housing market and mortgage-backed securities sparked the 2008 financial crisis, which created the most severe economic recession since the Great Depression. Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns collapsed and only government rescue packages prevented widespread contagion. The market crash and resulting Great Recession exposed major flaws in existing financial regulation and oversight.

In response, Congress passed the sweeping Dodd-Frank Act under President Obama in 2010, one of the most comprehensive financial regulatory reforms since the 1930s.

Key Provisions

• Created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to detect and manage systemic risks.
• Ended “too big to fail,” establishing an orderly liquidation process for failing financial institutions to be shut down safely without involving taxpayer-funded bailouts.
• Formed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which monitors financial products and services.
• The Volcker Rule placed limits on banks’ ability to engage in specific speculative investments.
• Set stricter capital and liquidity standards for financial institutions and new regulations for credit rating agencies.
• Established mortgage lending reforms to prevent predatory practices and overuse of subprime loans.

The Bottom Line

The transition from Glass-Steagall to Dodd-Frank demonstrates the way financial regulation evolves to meet new economic realities and address emerging challenges. Historical regulatory initiatives have addressed financial crises of the moment but often also helped avert future ones. Still, periods of resilience often led to calls for deregulation in the face of competition and bureaucratic red tape.

Looking forward, regulators will encounter new difficulties as financial technology advances along with cybersecurity threats and changing global market structures. Future regulations will only succeed if they can effectively manage emerging risks without hindering innovation and economic growth.