Editing Glass–Steagall legislation (section)

==Aftermath of repeal==
{{Main article|Aftermath of the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act}}
After the [[2008 financial crisis]], some commentators argued that the repeal of Sections 20 and 32 had played an important role in leading to the [[United States housing bubble]] and [[2008 financial crisis]]. [[Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences|Economics Nobel Memorial]] laureate [[Joseph Stiglitz]], for instance, argued that "[w]hen repeal of Glass-Steagall brought investment and commercial banks together, the investment-bank culture came out on top", and banks which had previously been managed conservatively turned to riskier investments to increase their returns.<ref name="capitalistfools" /> Another laureate, [[Paul Krugman]], contended that the repealing of the act "was indeed a mistake"; however, it was not the cause of the [[2008 financial crisis]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html|title=Democrats, Republicans and Wall Street Tycoons|last=Krugman|first=Paul|date=2015-10-16|newspaper=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=2016-09-11}}</ref>

Other commentators believed that these banking changes had no effect, and the [[2008 financial crisis]] would have happened the same way if the regulations had still been in force.<ref name="mitigate" /> [[Lawrence J. White]], for instance, noted that "it was not [commercial banks'] investment banking activities, such as underwriting and dealing in securities, that did them in".<ref name="White">{{citation| last=White| first=Lawrence J. | title =The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999: A Bridge Too Far? Or Not Far Enough? | journal=Suffolk University Law Review| volume=43| issue=4| year=2010| pages=938 and 943–946|url=http://web-docs.stern.nyu.edu/old_web/economics/docs/workingpapers/2010/White_The%20Gramm-Leach-Bliley%20Act%20of%201999.pdf|access-date=February 20, 2012}}.</ref>

At the time of the repeal, most commentators believed it would be harmless.{{cn|date=December 2023}} Because the Federal Reserve's interpretations of the act had already weakened restrictions previously in place, commentators did not find much significance in the repeal, especially of sections 20 and 32.<ref name="optimal" /> Instead, the five year anniversary of its repeal was marked by numerous sources explaining that the GLBA had not significantly changed the market structure of the banking and securities industries.{{cn|date=December 2023}} More significant changes had occurred during the 1990s when commercial banking firms had gained a significant role in securities markets through "Section 20 affiliates".{{cn|date=December 2023}}

The perception is{{whose|date=December 2023}} that the Glass-Steagall Act created a sense of accountability among investors within the financial management industry, encouraging them to (in effect) shy away from ultra-risky transactions that could lead to financial meltdown.{{cn|date=December 2023}}  It provided litigators validation involving cases against such sub-prime investment instruments on behalf of their clients who were impacted by such injustices.{{cn|date=December 2023}}  

Without formal and defensible protection as detailed in the Glass-Steagall Act, investment companies felt at liberty to move toward unscrupulous investment tactics that had occurred prior to 2009 involving sub-prime mortgages.{{cn|date=December 2023}}  Thus a cultural shift was certainly in order{{opinion|date=December 2023}} after its repeal regardless of the loopholes that existed prior.{{cn|date=December 2023}}  Although the magnitude may be questionable, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act is considered a factor in the [[2008 financial crisis]].