Massive Citigroup bailout worth as much as $326 billion

The US government agreed to backstop Citigroup's assets in a bailout worth as much as $326 billion. The complex plan involves Citigroup limiting dividends to one cent per share for a few years and the government getting a say on future executive compensation. The government will also receive preferred shares and warrants with strike price about 5x above the stock price on Friday (unless the company can itself around the warrants will likely end up worthless.)

This is the type of deal that is necessary when banks have grown too large for their own good. This move will help in the short to medium terms but will be detrimental to the economy in the long run. By backstopping poorly run firms with questionable assets and business decisions, the government is indirectly penalizing the well-run firms.

I think Citigroup needs to give up on its megabank idea and start splitting up the company. Some people criticize the whole concept of the megabank idea but I think it can work. One just needs to look at HSBC and see how it has done well over the years. As the countries become linked, consumers and businesses will start rewarding those that have global capabilities. However, my impression is that Citigroup has failed at this task and is probably incapable of running a global megabank.

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 24, 2008 at 4:41 PM

    Concept of megabank is not so bad - it's not only about the economy of scale. The bigger you are, the better you can diversify the risk. Oh yeah, but why would you do that, when you know there is a lender of last resort?
    The truth is governments want banks spreading money all around. Because it works in a short term and boosts (artificial) investments=growth. And that's what they want...
    Regards,
    Elli

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousNovember 24, 2008 at 7:22 PM

    Citi's shareholders did not take a hit in this bailout. So that goes against your "fear of gov't seizure" thesis.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Thoughts on the stock market - March 2020

Image
Right now, DJIA has a P/E of 16.8 and forwand P/E of 15.1, whereas S&P 500 is at 20.1 with forward P/E of 15.8. Source: WSJ market Data If you ignore interest rates and inflation expectations--both of these influence valuations but depends on your macro call-- the market is not cheap. Long-term P/E is around 15. Trailing P/E is around 20% (Dow) to 40% (S&P500) higher than average. Forward P/E is in line with long term average but that assumes a strong V recovery. Consensus forecast is for profits to drop 1.2% in 2020. In 2008, it dropped 25.4% so current forecast is a very mild recession. Covid-19 coronavirus is not going to last more than a few months but these forecasts are still too rosy in my opinion. So I wouldn't rely on forward P/E. The richly valued (mostly tech or high quality) have not fallen much but the distressed ones have. So if you want to outperform in the long run, I think one’s choice right now is to: • Wait for market to fall another, say
✖ READ MORE >>>

Warren Buffett's Evolution and his Three Investment Styles

Image
A Young Warren Buffett In a comment to one of my posts , Mark Carter, who incidentally appears to have a  good blog worth checking out , asked: "Buffett Prime is 1970's to early 1990's" Could you elaborate? I have vaguely indicated how I view Warren Buffett in the past, but I thought I would detail my view of his investing behaviour. This is more of an opinion piece and many others would disagree with me (if you do, I'm curious to hear your thoughts). I don't follow Warren Buffett as closely as many value investors so I may get some facts wrong. My view is that Warren Buffett went through three different phases, with each consisting of different investment techniques. The overall investment theory remained the same—what people call value investing—but his execution, tactics, and strategy differs across the three phases. Some people may break up his career into additional periods but my feeling is that the three I will describe essentially capt
✖ READ MORE >>>

Hugh Hendry discussion at the Alternative Investment Conference

Thanks to Value Investing World for bringing this Hugh Hendry interview to my attention. I may not agree with all the things—short-term orientation of hedge funds is actually worse IMO; the sharp pencil effect doesn't always work—but Hendry is a true contrarian and worth listening. Like Marc Faber or Jim Rogers, you also can't take everything Hugh Hendry says seriously. I had always felt Hugh Hendry was firmly in the deflation camp but I get the feeling that he is now opening up to high-inflation possibilities. Otherwise, his stance appears to be similar to past opinions.
✖ READ MORE >>>