Romney adviser dismisses capping bank size

NEW YORK Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:52pm EDT

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney arrives in Ronkonkoma, New York October 16, 2012 for his upcoming debate with U.S. President Barack Obama. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney arrives in Ronkonkoma, New York October 16, 2012 for his upcoming debate with U.S. President Barack Obama.

Credit: Reuters/Brian Snyder

Related Topics

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A top adviser to presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Tuesday dismissed an idea to cap the size of big banks floated last week by a senior U.S. Federal Reserve official.

Glenn Hubbard, an economic advisor in the Republican camp, said market forces would keep the size of financial institutions in check better than difficult and arbitrary government limits on banks judged too-big-to-fail.

Last week, Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo surprised Wall Street when he called on Congress to legislate "an upper bound point of reference" for banks based on their percentage of U.S. Gross Domestic Product.

The issue of too-big-to-fail banks could resurface later on Tuesday when Romney faces off against President Barack Obama in the second of three debates ahead of the November 6 poll. The stumbling economic recovery since the financial crisis has so far dominated in the campaign.

The comments from Tarullo, appointed to the Fed board by Obama, suggest regulators are still keenly worried that massive and complex banks can threaten the financial system, four years after the worst of the crisis.

Hubbard, dean of the Columbia Business School, on Tuesday added to the criticism that has since come from Wall Street.

"I understand Dan Tarullo gave those remarks. I disagree with them. First of all I'm not quite sure what a cap would be and how I would figure it out," Hubbard said in response to a question at a National Association for Business Economics conference.

"The reason we're concerned about big banks is that they're too big to fail," he added. "If the market forces say these banks are too big and too complex, they will be wittled down to size. And I think that's a much better (solution) than arbitrary limits on bank sizes."

Hubbard made the argument as news headlines surfaced that the chief executive of the third-largest U.S. bank, Citigroup Inc's Vikram Pandit, had abruptly resigned.

Citi was among the banks to receive a bailout during the 2008 crisis. It has since been under close watch by regulators. The Fed rejected Citi's capital plans this year after administering a stress test on the bank.

TOO-BIG-TO-FAIL COULD RESURFACE IN DEBATE

Tarullo, the central bank's point person on regulation, made his surprise proposal last Wednesday as he noted the difficulties regulators face in deciding which proposed bank acquisitions should be approved.

The absence of a well-established cap on the size of banks complicates such decisions, he said at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, in Philadelphia.

An ever larger bank "increases perceptions of at least some residual too-big-to-fail quality in such a firm," bringing a possible funding advantage that "reinforces the impulse to grow," said Tarullo, a one-time aide to former President Bill Clinton. He floated tying the non-deposit liabilities of banks to a specified percentage of the country's GDP, though he did not suggest a number.

"There is, then, a case to be made for specifying an upper bound," Tarullo said, adding, "it would be most appropriate for Congress to legislate on the subject."

During the previous presidential debate, Romney reiterated his plan to repeal the landmark Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, while Obama countered that the economic crisis was brought on by insufficient oversight of reckless behavior on Wall Street and elsewhere.

Asked about Romney's debate strategy, Hubbard told Reuters on the sidelines of the conference: "His objective is to continue the conversation with voters about what the right economic policies are for the country.

"He did that really well last time, and I'd be stunned if he doesn't do it well tonight," the adviser added.

(Reporting by Jonathan Spicer; editing by Andrew Hay)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
AlkalineState wrote:
“Glenn Hubbard, an economic advisor in the Republican camp, said market forces would keep the size of financial institutions in check…”

Maybe he failed history AND economics in school. Or he just thinks we’re stupid. The free market does a lot of things, but not that. Market forces don’t prevent monopolies. Market forces create monopolies. It’s up to the government to keep that in check. That’s why Teddy Roosevelt had to break up JP Morgan, Carnegie Steel, Standard Oil, etc.

The financial industry will police itself. Good one. Like Bear Stearns and AIG. Romney wants us back in the Bush days.

Oct 16, 2012 4:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jcfl wrote:
i feel it’s quite simple. if any bank wants govt guarantees, then it divests itself of all investment banking, uncovered calls and puts, and any other uncovered leveraged investment. “make money the old fashioned way – earn it” as the old tv commercial went. huge risk should not go hand in hand with govt guarantees. that is for the investment companies that do not fall under the FDIC. Glass-Steagall accomplished that very thing for over 65 years. it is imperative to understand that the dem party wants to return to banking safety, and the gop wants to eliminate all restrictions and regulations – we cannot stand another depression caused by “market forces” as this gentleman suggests. stop making bad policy appear to be just normal markets at work.

Oct 16, 2012 4:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Alex77 wrote:
Sure they waive aside any concerns about “too big to fail”. Sure their team will “get us working again”. They are going to do what was done before to grow our economy at the incredible average pace of 2% the last 30 years by suppressing regulation, letting Wall Street run wild, and letting the markets run our nation (aka: Reaganomics/trickle-down). Get ready for another 30 years of near standstill average growth while the ultra-rich (many of them located outside the US) milk our system for trillions and leave the prime US taxpayers (inside the US) with the whole bill. The fact that 52% (if you believe the polls) will vote for this ruse again is proof that the US education system has failed.

Oct 17, 2012 7:23am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Recommended Newsletters

Reuters U.S. Top News
A quick-fix on the day's news published with Reuters videos and award-winning news photography and delivered at your choice of one of four times during the day.
Reuters Deals Today
The latest Reuters articles on M&A, IPOs, private equity, hedge funds and regulatory updates delivered to your inbox each day.
Reuters Technology Report
Your daily briefing on the latest tech developments from around the world from Reuters expert tech correspondents.