2012-07-25google.com

Weill said the radical change is necessary if U.S. banks want to rebuild trust and remain on top of the world's financial system. Weill also criticized banks for taking on too much debt and not providing enough disclosure about what's on their balance sheets.

... standalone investment banks, Weill said, wouldn't take deposits, so they wouldn't be bailed out. Banks that have both investment banking and consumer banking say it's necessary to keep them together because they balance each other, ensuring stability no matter the economy.

We welcome the sentiment but the argument seems a little facile to us. For instance, Goldman got bailed out (through AIG) and it wasn't a deposit-taking bank. And if one somehow managed to do a perfect implementation of a Glass-Steagall-like law, it seems that it would have to eliminate things we've come to rely on like mortgage securitizations -- so are we really ready to totally separate "investment" from "banking"?

Here's another article on Weill's comments which points out:

David Knutson, an analyst with Legal & General Investment Management, said it was hard to believe Weill, "the shatterer of Glass-Steagall," has now changed his mind. "He enjoyed the benefits of the demise of Glass-Steagall and only now has he become remorseful? Where was he five years ago?"

...

Directors of Citigroup paid Weill about $1 billion, including stock, during his 17 years as CEO, as he assembled a behemoth with operations across the world that offered investment banking, trading, commercial banking, insurance and consumer finance. He left the board in 2006.



Comments: Be the first to add a comment

add a comment | go to forum thread