Breaking Up Banks Wouldn't Stop Risk: Rubin

Print
Email
Reprints
Comment (1)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+
Partner Insights

Breaking up the biggest banks would be futile, onetime Citigroup (NYSE:C) eminence and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said on Thursday.

It was the latest repudiation of Sandy Weill's change of heart by someone with ties to Weill. The former Citigroup chief executive, who created the modern megabank, last summer started advocating for the separation of large banks' investment and commercial banking activities. Since then several bankers, regulators and industry veterans have weighed in, keeping the debate about the largest banks' size and utility roiling.

Rubin on Thursday delicately disagreed with Weill, who had "personally recruited" him to Citigroup.

"I have a lot of respect for Sandy, but I think that if you followed Sandy's path and you broke up the banks in some fashion or other, as he's describing, the risk isn't going to go away," Rubin said in a CNBC interview Thursday.

"The systemic risk, the 'too big to fail' risk will move from one place to another place," he added. "For example, if you could curtail what the banks can do in terms of trading, it isn't that the trading is going to go away. You have a large global economy that needs those activities but they'll go to other platforms. I think the real question is, are there ways to deal with the risk?"

Former Treasury Secretary and Rubin protégé Timothy Geithner "probably had the best answer" to that question, in advocating for banks to build up their capital levels, Rubin said. Geithner is rejoining the Council on Foreign Relations, where Rubin is a co-chairman.

Rubin has been criticized for his role at Citigroup in the years leading up to the financial crisis; as a director and a senior advisor who collected some $126 million in compensation from the bank, critics say he could have done more to prevent the bank's massive losses on mortgage-backed securities. Citigroup wound up taking $45 billion in bailouts from the U.S. government during Rubin's watch; the Treasury Department only got rid of the last of the Citi securities it acquired in the bailouts this week.

A "Frontline" television program last month focused in part on Rubin's role at Citigroup, noting that an internal whistleblower warned him in 2007 that the company was buying huge amounts of bad mortgages. When a financial crisis inquiry panel asked Rubin in 2010 how he reacted to that email, he told them, "Either I or somebody else sent it to the appropriate people."

When asked on Thursday if he felt any responsibility for what happened to Citigroup, Rubin largely demurred.

"I was worried about excesses before the crisis began. But what I didn't see and virtually nobody saw … was the possibility of a serious crisis. It turned out to be the worst crisis in about 80 years. I wish I had seen it," he said. "I regret not having seen it, and I would suspect or would guess that there are very large numbers, vast numbers of other people who have the same view, that is to say, who also regret not having seen it."

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(1) Comment

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

'I Want a Tom O'Brien Action Figure Doll': Comments of the Week

American Banker readers share their views on the most pressing banking topics of the week. Comments are excerpted from reader response sections of AmericanBanker.com articles and from our social media platforms.

(Image: Bloomberg News)

Comments (1)
It is quite alarming, why someone who failed as largely as Robert Rubin did as Citigroup's counsel and then chairman, who in turn arranged to have the government bailout Citigroup with $45 billion while he kept the $126 million that he was paid for the corporation's failure, on top of having years earlier erroneously advised president Clinton not to regulate the derivatives that in turn destroyed US finance, while simultaneously advocating the repeal of Glass-Steagall laws that encouraged a systemic collapse, still has any influence in American society. Aside from the obvious inferences of corruption connected with his transition from Clinton's administration and to his position at Citigroup, why does a man, who inordinately failed with his advice as a thinker and advisor at 2 separate intervals, continue in a powerful role in either banking or US foreign policy 3 years after his 2nd enormous failure?

And for Mr. Rubin to feign that he didn't or couldn't anticipate the extent of potential disaster of derivatives in 2007 after the 1998 blow-up of Long-Term Capital Management, is either a vivid example of a leader with their head perpetually stuck in the sand or a man in very deep denial. But the real question is, why hasn't Robert Rubin been put out to pasture like a good a thoroughbred after their career has passed?
Posted by Steven Mitchell | Tuesday, February 12 2013 at 12:40PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.