So they reduced reserves by 2 billion,but they have a profit this year after losing 29 billion the last 2 years and your argument is that they really aren't doing better
my argument is twofold. first and foremost, to address your comment that obama has anything at all to do with this reported number by citi. second, to show that they are only profitable on paper. reducing reserves to come up with profit in a time of risk is an act of desperation, not sound financial thinking. it is an attempt to get more investors to buy into citi so the government can offload at a high as possible price, it's ownership. hint: greater fool.
they got $6.3B today in pomo. they'll likely get similar on Wed and Fri of this week. with this kind of money flowing, and the drive for asset prices, youre seeing a backdoor bailout. it's been happening for some months now. read.
If they had reduced reserves by 29 billion maybe,but 2 billion in reserves on a 29 billion dollar turn around means nothing.
on the contrary, the fact that they reduced reserves by almost the entire number of profit means a great deal to me. the action funded their entire profitable number (minus a paltry 100MM). you would never see a reduction in reserves of 29B or anywhere near that magnitude. and it still has nothing to do with obama, which is why you posted this thread in the first place (and youve said nothing in regards to ever since).
After losing 29 billion if they break even or have a 2 billion dollar loss its still a huge improvement. I wouldn't expect you to give credit to Obama for so many businesses doing good.If Citi had loss 29 billion I would surely expect you to blame him though
Yes I did. LOL!!! Is that how you respond to the facts of my post? Ignore them and then pick out a typo? Yah, that way no one will noticed you got punk'd and didn't respond to the facts of my statement. Brilliant!! Don't worry, no one will notice... LOL!!!
youre a complete idiot. continue viewing the world from under that rock of ignorance. see where it gets you.