Two Deposit Insurance Funds Are Not Necessarily Better Than One
Thomson, James B., Economic Commentary (Cleveland)
Does the United States need to maintain two separate insurance funds for banks and thrifts? This Economic Commentary examines the arguments in support of a recent reform proposal for merging them.
The Great Depression opened an era of increased federal government intervention into private markets. It brought striking changes to the financial sector, where legislation like the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 sought to compartmentalize financial firms and markets into distinct sets of activities (commercial banking, housing finance, investment banking, and insurance). This fragmentation was mirrored in government agencies, where a separate regulatory infrastructure was established for …
The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia
Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:
- Questia's entire collection
- Automatic bibliography creation
- More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
- Ad-free environment
Already a member? Log in now.
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information:
Article title: Two Deposit Insurance Funds Are Not Necessarily Better Than One.
Contributors: Thomson, James B. - Author.
Journal title: Economic Commentary (Cleveland).
Publication date: October 15, 2000.
Page number: 1+.
© 1999 Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.
One moment ...
- Georgia
- Arial
- Times New Roman
- Verdana
- Courier/monospaced
Reset