The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 barred commercial banks and their affil
iates from underwriting and dealing in securities activities, amidst c
oncerns that banks abused the trust of their depositors and clientele
by systematically underwriting poor quality security issues. This pape
r examines if these concerns were justified by studying the long-term
default performance of bank underwritten issues as compared to non-ban
k underwritten issues. The evidence shows that, contrary to convention
al wisdom, bank underwritten issues defaulted less than non-bank under
written issues, over a seven year period from the issue date and had a
significantly lower mortality rate.