The Dynamic Growth "Weekly Briefing" was posted to the Newsletter portion of the website on Sunday.

To access the "Weekly Briefing", go to the "Newsletter" link at the top of the page and sign in by establishing your own username and password.

Today, President Obama called for a semi return to Glass Steagal Act. I have criticized law makers for repealing the Act since it was first abolished in 1999. But, the President failed to lay blame for who was really responsible for the repeal. During today's announcement he should have turned to the Senators behind him, and said, "The collapse of the entire banking system was the fault of the Congress, and President Clinton, for repealing Glass Steagal back in 1999".

Here's how it happened.

Senator Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas who's now hiding under a rug) and Representative Jim Leach (R-Iowa) introduced the legislation. The final bill passed by a 90–8 margin in the Senate, and 362–57 in the House. President Bill Clinton signed the legislation into law on November 12, 1999.

I'm sure the banks lobbied heavily for the legislation, but if these politicians were truly working for people like you and I, it would have never passed.

If the semi-reintroduction of Glass Steagal is done properly, banks will no longer be allowed to own and operate brokerage businesses. This means shareholders of stocks like Bank of America (BAC) will reap a windfall if the company eventually spins off Merrill Lynch.

As a standalone bank, I believe BAC is worth $45 a share. This of course is assuming sometime over the next 5 years the economy stabilizes, or returns to it's normal growth. Merrill Lynch, prior to the financial meltdown hit as high as $90/ share, and was bought by BAC for under $30.

In all honesty, Ken Lewis (former CEO of BAC) really didn't want to buy Merrill, but was forced to do so by former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulsen, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. I don't think Bank of America will have any reservations if they are forced to spin-off Merrill Lynch.

But, let's get real here. The chances of President Obama's announcement passing, and severely impacting the banks, is slim and none. A lot of what we heard this morning was political grandstanding in light of the democrats stunning defeat in Massachusetts. Sure, there will be some reforms, kind of like the "Chinese Wall" farce they came up with in 2001 after the investment banks and brokers had conflict of interest problems during the dot-com craze.

Anyway you cut it, stocks like Bank of America (BAC), and Wells Fargo (WFC) (both own brokerage operations) should be worth 2 or 3 times what they are currently trading at 5-10 years down the road.