http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticke...LF,FAS,faz&sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode= The nausea we feel with respect to Citigroup (C) and our Treasury Secretary just hit a new high. Perhaps it's true that civilization would have ended if we had just allowed Sandy Weill's colossal junk pile to finish blowing itself up. But at this point that seems a more attractive alternative. In case you missed it, here's the latest outrage: As of yesterday afternoon, the United States taxpayer owned 34% of Citigroup's common stock , in addition to a massive amout of TARP preferred stock. The US taxpayer did not own 34% of Citigroup's common stock by choice. We owned it because our government decided to bail Citigroup out not once, not twice, but three times. In the last of these bailouts, the Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner gave Citigroup the latest in a long series of gifts, by converting some of our preferred stock to Citigroup common stock at $3.25 a share. This conversion price was too high and resulted in an invisible bailout/gift that most people missed. It also left taxpayers with the dubious privilege of holding Citigroup common stock. Common stock is lower in the capital structure than preferred stock, meaning that it will be the first thing to be wiped out if Citigroup starts losing boatloads of money again. As Citigroup investors know all too well, common stock also carries with it a high possibility of loss: If the stock price falls, we're toast (whereas with preferred stock, we get our money back when the company redeems it). Given all that, the first taxpayer holding that Citigroup should have sold should have been the common stock. Citigroup's stock has been trading at $4 for several months. It is heavily traded. We could have dumped our entire stake in the company over the past few months for a reasonable gain. Instead, we just sat there, waiting to be reamed again. Then Citigroup decided that it simply had to pay the TARP money back (understandable). Of course, Citigroup didn't have the money to do this. So it had to raise the money by selling $17 billion of new common stock at a huge discount to the trading price ($3.15) and diluting the heck out of the US taxpayer again. We now own only 26% of Citigroup, down from 34%. This value destruction is permanent. As was the case with Bank of America and the rest of our bailouts, the fault for this one cannot be laid merely at the feet of Citigroup. Citigroup is behaving sensibly under the circumstances. The fault can--and should--be laid at the feet of the man who likely has done more for Wall Street at taxpayer expense than any man in history: Tim Geithner. Will we get our money back? Possibly. If Citigroup stock recovers, and we sell our stock this time, we'll do fine. But we could still lose all of it. And, as with Bank of America, et al, by allowing the bank to redeem the TARP before implementing any new reforms or controls, we've given up whatever leverage we had left. Here's how banking analyst Chris Kotowski of Oppenheimer describes what just happened to us...click here to read the full report.
To stay under TARP would be suicide. Citigroup can borrow all it wants from Uncle Ben without all the cry babies like BO and congress with their non-ending restricts.
BO and Congress is in bed with these companies. They say things in public and do other things behind closed doors. It does not take a rocket scientist to notice all the GS/etc.. alumni sitting in important posts in his administration.
Perhaps you are confusing GWBush with BO. Bushâs Treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, is a former Goldman C.E.O., but his replacement at Treasury, Tim Geithner, has never worked at GS or any other investment banks. Presently in the Obama administration, there are a few staff members who are GS alumni, such as Mark Patterson and Diana Farrell. But I think their influences are minimal compared to Hank Paulson's influence over Bush. edited: forgot to add Lawrence Summers as the economic advisor, but he is probably not as important as most people think.
Bush was in bed with em as well. But so is Obama. The "Change we can believe in"(tm) president. Why dont you read this article before you think Obama is this great "Change we can believe in"(tm) president. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout
In a move that quietly flew under the radar, The Washington Post reported today that the US government granted Citigroup (NYSE:C) billions in tax exemptions as part of a deal between the company to repay TARP bailout money. The concession is designed to help the company survive the current economic crisis despite the gigantic taxpayer funded bailout the company has already received. These tax breaks are yet another massive economic benefit the company has received over the past year in an attempt by the US Treasury to stabilize the banking giant. http://www.americanbankingnews.com/...-billions-in-tax-benefits-to-citigroup-nysec/
Obama was the best change we could get at the time, no one can claim he is the only change we need. There is no doubt too much wall street and corporate contribution to Washington DC, but that was how the American populace has always voted in the past.