Banking.senate.gov/public/_files/070110_Dodd_Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_comprehensive_summary_Final.pdf.
Banking.senate.gov/public/_files/070110_Dodd_Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_comprehensive_summary_Final.pdf. Mr. Weill Goes To Washington - The Long Demise Of Glass-Steagall | The Wall Street Fix | FRONTLINE. At a dinner in Washington in February 1998, Sandy Weill of Travelers invites Citicorp's John Reed to his hotel room at the Park Hyatt and proposes a merger.
In March, Weill and Reed meet again, and at the end of two days of talks, Reed tells Weill, "Let's do it, partner! " On April 6, 1998, Weill and Reed announce a $70 billion stock swap merging Travelers (which owned the investment house Salomon Smith Barney) and Citicorp (the parent of Citibank), to create Citigroup Inc., the world's largest financial services company, in what was the biggest corporate merger in history. The transaction would have to work around regulations in the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company acts governing the industry, which were implemented precisely to prevent this type of company: a combination of insurance underwriting, securities underwriting, and commecial banking. Citicorp and Travelers quietly lobby banking regulators and government officials for their support.
Is This the End of Wall Street As They Knew It? On Wall Street, bonus season is a sacred ritual. It is the annual rite where net worth and self-worth get elegantly reduced to a single number. During the 25-year boom that abruptly ended in 2008, the only principle that really mattered come bonus time was how you ranked against the guys to your right and left. The system was governed by a kind of atavistic justice: You eat what you kill.
From the outside, the seven- and eight-figure payouts that star bankers earned could seem obscene, immoral even. But on the inside, the outlandish compensation reflected a strict, almost moral logic. And so, among the many dislocations Wall Street has suffered since 2008, none may have been more destabilizing than the headlines that flashed across Bloomberg terminals on the afternoon of January 17, when news leaked that Morgan Stanley would cap cash bonuses at just $125,000. Banks have always had occasional bad years, but the sense on Wall Street is that this bad year is different. Citizens United and the Nexus-Of-Contracts Presumption | Harvard Business Law Review (HBLR) Download PDF Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission[1] has been described as “one of the most important business decisions in a generation.”[2] In Citizens United, the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated section 441(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 as unconstitutional.[3] That section prohibited corporations (and unions) from financing “electioneering communications” (speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate) within 30 days of a primary election. The five Justices in the majority rested their holding on the assertion that “Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity.”[4] In reaching this conclusion, the majority relied on a view of the corporation fundamentally as an “association of citizens.”[5] Meanwhile, the view of the corporation advanced by Justice Stevens in dissent differed markedly from that of the majority.
I suggest another explanation. . [1] 130 S. . [2] Larry E.