No. When Glass-Steagall was repealed it was dead in the water, and everyone said so at the time. What it was designed to prevent, commercial banks engaging in securities trading, had long since been circumvented (since the 70s). Commercial banks simply acted through affiliate companies to participate in the securities business. No one said a peep about the potential consequences when they rid of it in 1999, why? Because there were no consequences. The repeal of that regulation had absolutely nothing to do with the financial crises. It's a post facto scape-goat cooked up by liberal economists who advocate for more government regulation. These same economists had no fucking clue what was going on during the boom period and swore up and down the economy was in great shape right up untill the bubble burst. If you want to know the real cause of the financial crises, you should check out members of the Austrian School, who described the impending housing bubble in perfect detail, and were predicting it's eventual collapse as early as 2002, shortly after Greenspan drastically lowered interest rates to help "recover" from the dot-com bubble bursting.
The Glass-steagall Act has been a hot debate. The act was passed and quickly signed into law. Many experts say that the division between commercial and investment financial institutions should have been left intact to start with. Now, even one of the staunchest voices calling for the repeal of Glass-Steagall has changed his mind. Some call the unpredicted reversal as "ironic".
I remember there were many warning of the possible consequences. Try - Glass-Steagall Act: The Senators And Economists Who Got It Right http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/11/glass-steagall-act-the-se_n_201557.html