No FDIC insurance for investment banks

Reader comment on: Bloomberg on Banks

Submitted by Jan Twardowski (United States), Jun 19, 2012 15:30

The idea put forward in a recent WSJ op-ed was to limit FDIC deposit insurance to deposit/loan banks, excluding those engaging in investment banking, brokerage, proprietary trading, etc. It's basically reinstating a key element of Glass-Steagall. Seems like a better idea to me than the per-institution limit.

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Submit a comment on this article

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
Why any subsidy?
[w/response] [90 words]		Joe VencilJun 21, 2012 07:47
Excellent Idea [22 words]LiberatedCitizedJun 20, 2012 15:49
Avoid Bank Failures Without a Bank Subsidy [58 words]David WeinkrantzJun 19, 2012 19:17
Why the strange rejections by your system [39 words]John GillisJun 19, 2012 18:28
Try Laissez-faire [67 words]John GillisJun 19, 2012 18:26
Once upon a time. [76 words]LyleJun 19, 2012 16:53
⇒ No FDIC insurance for investment banks [47 words]Jan TwardowskiJun 19, 2012 15:30

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to No FDIC insurance for investment banks by Jan Twardowski

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.