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.
我必須承認(rèn)，自己過(guò)去并不怎么認(rèn)同《格拉斯-斯蒂格爾法案》(Glass-Steagall Act)在美國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)強(qiáng)制分隔投資銀行業(yè)務(wù)與商業(yè)銀行業(yè)務(wù)的分業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)理念。我不贊成限制契約自由，除非能有強(qiáng)有力的證據(jù)使我相信自由市場(chǎng)機(jī)制存在問(wèn)題。我也不同意有關(guān)廢除《格拉斯-斯蒂格爾法案》之舉促成了2008年金融危機(jī)的觀點(diǎn)。貝爾斯登(Bear Stearns)、雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)、華盛頓互惠銀行(Washington Mutual)、Countrywide等受此次危機(jī)沖擊最大的銀行，都是純粹的投資銀行或純粹的商業(yè)銀行。允許銀行混業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)對(duì)于迅速出臺(tái)紓困措施以穩(wěn)定金融體系至關(guān)重要：摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)對(duì)貝爾斯登的收購(gòu)、以及美國(guó)銀行(Bank of America)對(duì)美林(Merrill Lynch)的收購(gòu)就是例子。