I've been reading news articles about the 'Volcker Rule' and trying to establish the difference between this and Glass Steagall (1933).The more I read the more confused I get.For example in the New York Times;http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... cker-rule/ Quote"[The Glass-Steagall act] required banks to spin off or shut down their brokerage and investment operations" However it concludes with;Quote"The president is acting on a proposal that Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, has been pushing for months. It is sometimes referred to as ?Glass-Steagall in spirit.? But the behavior involved and the proposed solution are different enough for the legislation to have its own nickname ? and Obama himself has suggested one: the Volcker Rule."My pro-forma conclusion is that the Glass Steigall act separated Commercial and Investment banking. Whereas the Volker act will forbid deposit-taking banks from prop trading Quote"or owning, investing in or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds."Source: The Daily Telegraph (Online)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... risis.html Is this the general consensus?

QuoteOriginally posted by: CiportneMy pro-forma conclusion is that the Glass Steigall act separated Commercial and Investment banking. Whereas the Volker act will forbid deposit-taking banks from prop trading This sum up my understanding of the two + having prop trading subsidiaries.

Ciportne,Your understanding is correct, just replace deposit taking banks with the more ambiguous "bank holding corporations".