If the latest rumors are correct, it looks like Citigroup (NYSE: C) will not change very much from its current structure. So Citi may fail to follow the compelling story arc of repealing Glass-Steagall to form itself in 1998 only to reinstate that 1933 law in 2009 by splitting its investment and commercial banking operations. Instead, it looks like Citi will do a bit of trimming around the edges.

At the core of the problem is $150 billion in toxic assets -- consumer, corporate, and leveraged loans -- which appears to be the amount of cash Citi will need to raise assuming it writes off all that toxic waste and then attempts to raise the same amount of capital through asset sales.

So Citi's new strategy is to find buyers who in total are willing to pay $150 billion for the various pieces of Citi's business. And this push appears to be coming from FDIC chair Sheila Bair who may be representing taxpayers' 7% stake -- the single largest -- in Citi. But after all the selling Citi will still have consumer, commercial, and investment banking operations (basically the same corporate strategy).

So what is Citi going to try to hawk? Here are four candidates:

Last month, I posted on 2008's eight worst ideas. At the top of my list was deregulation. Robert Rubin, who spent a decade as a director of Citigroup (NYSE: C) and is now retiring, is partly responsible for one very important act of deregulation -- the repeal of Glass-Steagall which separated investment and commercial banking. (It was former Citi CEO Sandy Weill's 1998 merger of his Travelers with Citi that spurred Glass-Steagall's repeal in the 1999 passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which allowed commercial and investment banks to own each other.)

And by bringing down that barrier -- established in the wake of the stock market manipulations of the 1920s enabled by commercial banks that made margin loans to trade stocks -- the U.S. helped usher in the current financial catastrophe. Now the government is gradually reimposing Glass-Steagall -- in effect, if not in law.

Rubin was well rewarded for his decade of "service" to Citi -- taking in $126 million and being paid as an employee while claiming to be a mere advisor. But for that measly sum, Rubin's reputation -- which was at its zenith following his tenure as Treasury Secretary in the 1990s -- is shredded. It probably didn't help that since he joined Citi's board in October 1999, its stock has fallen 82% -- destroying $164 billion in stock market value. Meanwhile, the empire that Weill ushered in -- based on the idea that people wanted to buy all their financial services from one provider -- is being dismantled.

This post was part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst of 2007. Voting has now closed and, in a close race, readers have chosen Chuck Prince as the best CEO departure of the year. Let us know in the comments if you are pleased with this result.

When looking back at 2007, there were some larger-than-life CEO departures that semi-rocked the business world and brought some investors to the realization of over-the-top compensation yet again. Let's look at a few and then you can decide the winner. Sound good?

First up comes Bill Ford, Jr., from the automotive industry. Under Ford's leadership, Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) lost its way in terms of correctly forecasting what kind of vehicles customers actually wanted, in addition to becoming horribly leveraged. As soon as gas prices began shooting up, Ford Motor started spiraling down. Long-time Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) executive Alan Mulally was brought in to replace Ford as the automaker's CEO just in the nick of time. Ford Motor's expected profitability date with Ford now gone: 2009.

How about Bob Nardelli, formerly CEO of Home Depot Inc. (NYSE: HD)? Nardelli made global headlines by making tens of millions while leading Home Depot shares to the basement and apparently making all kinds of bad decisions that finally led to his ouster this year. On top of that, his severance package made a Brad Pitt paycheck seem like pennies, and Home Depot shareholders paid for it. Did Home Depot stakeholders get a voice in this corporate travesty? A small one, perhaps.