THE Citigroup Thread (merged)

deMolay · **Joined:** Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:00 am **Posts:** 2055

Lowem is that a pitchfork in your hand?

lowem · **Posted:** Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:06 am

deMolay wrote:

Lowem is that a pitchfork in your hand?

BFG-9000

galacticsurfer · **Joined:** Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:00 am **Posts:** 406

GE also in DEEP SH*T

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/WMT ... ex/a/20014

Quote:

General Electric (GE), that legendary American institution, is in deep trouble. It’s one of the few companies in the US that still retains its AAA rating - but, considering the rating agencies’ track record, that AAA isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

ReverseEngineer · **Joined:** Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 3584

lowem wrote:

That leaves them with 300,000.
I wonder if that would still be 200,000 too many ...

The Banking Industry doesn't need ANY workers. The whole industry can be run by Henry Paulson from his Laptop. He can write checks to himself, borrow from himself at Zero Percent and charge himself 18% interest on the money he borrows to make zillions on the money Ben printed for him yesterday.

It only stops working when he can't afford to buy any more ink.

Reverse Engineer

Gorm · **Posted:** Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:12 am

I dont think one man is enougth. 2 - 3 years ago an article stated that a bank needed 20 to 25 people to run its operations. No links, just my memory.

lowem · **Posted:** Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:10 am

Gorm wrote:

I dont think one man is enougth. 2 - 3 years ago an article stated that a bank needed 20 to 25 people to run its operations. No links, just my memory.

So that just leaves the other 299,975 redundant then.

RSFB · **Joined:** Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 313

ReverseEngineer wrote:

The Banking Industry doesn't need ANY workers. The whole industry can be run by Henry Paulson from his Laptop. He can write checks to himself, borrow from himself at Zero Percent and charge himself 18% interest on the money he borrows to make zillions on the money Ben printed for him yesterday.

It only stops working when he can't afford to buy any more ink.

Reverse Engineer

I remembered this comment when having lunch today and was laughing like a maniac in the middle of the restaurant.

Submitted to "member quotes".

deMolay · **Joined:** Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:00 am **Posts:** 2055

Reverse Eng. is right about the cost of ink. I have a keepsake from the German hyper inflation period in the 1920's. Actual Mark notes from the beginning, about midway through and at the end. They started out as big beautiful high quality artistic pieces of paper, they became smaller and smaller and findly about 2"X3" and only printed on one side. Reason the paper and ink had more value than the fiat money.

ReverseEngineer · **Joined:** Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 3584

RSFB wrote:

ReverseEngineer wrote:

The Banking Industry doesn't need ANY workers. The whole industry can be run by Henry Paulson from his Laptop. He can write checks to himself, borrow from himself at Zero Percent and charge himself 18% interest on the money he borrows to make zillions on the money Ben printed for him yesterday.

It only stops working when he can't afford to buy any more ink.

Reverse Engineer

I remembered this comment when having lunch today and was laughing like a maniac in the middle of the restaurant.

Submitted to "member quotes".

Glad I was able to make your lunch a fun one RSFB :-)

Thanks for the submission to "member quotes". Really funny stuff is only funny because there is so much truth to it, unfortunately.

Reverse Engineer

IslandCrow · **Posted:** Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:47 am

Gorm wrote:

I dont think one man is enougth. 2 - 3 years ago an article stated that a bank needed 20 to 25 people to run its operations. No links, just my memory.

The banking group I bank with has less than 20 staff all told and the local branch office has 6.

This bank does not fit into the *Too big to fail* category, so it is good that they have not borrowed money from other banks to cover their loans, and have a Capital Adequacy Ratio at least 3 times as high as the major banking chains here.

My feeling is that as things contract after hitting PO we will need these small local banks, with responsible lending to people they know, but the governments are only interested in saving some of the large ones. One of the first practical moves to support "relocalization" that I could do was to transfer my banking to a local group. [Disclaimer: from the information Seahorse(2) has published I realise that not all small local banks have followed a conservative lending practice, and at least in his area many are in deep difficulty - so check the financial statements of the banks you do business with]

Sixstrings · **Joined:** Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 1699

Quote:

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc. will probably get rescued by the U.S. government after a crisis in confidence erased half its stock-market value in three days, investors and analysts said.

Citigroup has more than $2 trillion of assets, dwarfing companies such as American International Group Inc. that got U.S. support this year. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke may favor a rescue to avoid the chaotic aftermath of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s bankruptcy in September.

“There is no question that Citi is in the category of ‘too big to fail,’” said Michael Holland, chairman and founder of Holland & Co. in New York, which oversees $4 billion. “There is a commitment from this administration and the next to do what it takes to save Citi.”

While Citigroup executives say the company has adequate capital and liquidity to ride out the crisis, its tumbling share price may shake the confidence of creditors, clients and rating agencies. A similar scenario played out at Lehman, when Chief Executive Officer Richard Fuld declared the firm was “on the right track” five days before the firm went bankrupt.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... =worldwide

Sixstrings · **Joined:** Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:00 am **Posts:** 1699

Quote:

Update: The government is looking to buy substantial amount of assets from Citi like a good bank, bad bank structure. The government will absorb much of the losses for Citi if there are losses and Citi would issue preferred stock to the government.

The Feds could buy more than $100 billion in the bad assets if the plans go through.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27873985

Revi · **Posted:** Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:42 pm

What are we doing this for? Is there something that is going to benefit us the taxpayers about buying up Citi's bad assets?

I think not.

Will it help the financial crisis to do this?

I think not.

Denny · **Posted:** Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:44 pm

I also have some trashy stocks in my portfolio, that have sunk 75% in value. I admit, I did not cut them loose when I should have. So, in that respect, I guess I am like Citibank. I wish there was somebody around to buy these off me at their original price.

Anybody interested?

frankthetank · **Posted:** Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:53 pm

What a joke... Why doesn't the God forsaken government just buy everything. They can start buy buying the autos, the airplanes, the farms...

THE Citigroup Thread (merged)

Who is online