Recs

31

Citigroup Wants Taxpayers Out of Its Hair

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

Good news! Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) -- now 34% owned by taxpayers -- is developing a plan to rid itself of its ward-of-the-state status.

Citi is devising a plan to raise $5 billion by selling common stock, likely to repay a portion of the preferred shares still owned by the U.S. Treasury. It's also planning to ask the Treasury to simultaneously sell a chunk of its 7.7 billion common shares back to private markets.

This is great news for taxpayers waiting for last year's bank bailouts to be repaid. But it means very little, if anything, for current Citigroup shareholders.

After several injections, taxpayers pumped $52 billion into Citigroup. Just recently, $25 billion of that was converted into common stock, leaving another $27 billion or so left as preferred stock. Even if Citigroup uses all $5 billion raised from common-stock sales to repurchase preferred stock, taxpayers would still hold a $22 billion preferred stake. That's no small sum for a company still trying to figure out how to earn a profit.

And the Treasury selling common stock back to private markets may be encouraging from a confidence point of view, but it does nothing to Citi's balance sheet. Ownership would transfer from taxpayers to private investors, but the real damage -- the 75% dilution that came with issuing the common stock -- remains in place. And from a technical view, the downward pressure that would come with selling a few billion shares into private markets could kill the enthusiasm that's pushed shares unjustifiably higher this summer -- the same enthusiasm that's no doubt being used as evidence the bank is healthy enough to go at it alone.

We can't blame Citigroup for wanting to tell Uncle Sam to beat it. As rivals Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS  ) and JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM  ) return to life as normal, market-owned banks, the stigma of being attached to taxpayers absolutely has its downsides. Same goes for Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  ) . Citi and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  ) are both realizing this.

But most of the damage that came from relying on government funds is already done, and largely irreversible. The biggest change that might come with shedding government ownership might be the relaxation of executive pay restrictions. From a shareholder point of view, that's hardly a victory to cheer for.

For related Foolishness:

Best Odds in the Universe!
If you're interested in a 98.79% chance at beating the market... and a 70.84% chance at DOUBLING the market's return – Motley Fool Supernova could be just what you're looking for. And get this: We arrived at these odds from 10,000 random back-tested portfolios composed of Motley Fool Co-founder David Gardner's personal stock picks.

It's why David recently handpicked a small team of world-class portfolio managers. You see, he thinks these odds can get even better! And he'd like to prove it to you...

Simply enter your email address. And the answer to the question everybody is asking will be delivered to your inbox!

Fool contributor Morgan Housel doesn't own shares in any of the companies mentioned in this article. The Fool has a disclosure policy.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Oldfool103 wrote:

    Having lost money three different times with this bank--it was my adviser's decision, although that hardly matters--I frankly don't care what Citi does, other than just going back to banking. They brought this on themselves. Live with it.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2009, at 4:16 PM, BMFPitt wrote:

    And I'd like Citi to not be mooching off of my taxes. Until such a time, I have no problem with any punative measures that the government can come up with. It will serve as an example to others not to seek bailouts.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2009, at 4:58 PM, LessGovernment wrote:

    Don’t you just get a warm fuzzy knowing that Citigroup is selling debt in their worthless company that is being guaranteed by the FDIC that is backed by you whether you like it or not?

    We got into this mess because debt and derivatives were rated AAA instead of junk.

    Now, the FDIC is backing the issuance of junk debt that is known at time of issuance to be junk.

    But by backing the debt with a taxpayer guarantee through the conduit of the FDIC, the debt is actually AAA as far as the purchaser is concerned because there is absolutely no risk to the purchaser, but that is not to say there is no risk. There is great risk, but all risk has simply been transferred to the taxpayer - again.

    What have we learned?

    Well, we have learned that if we push all risk to the taxpayer, then even junk can be AAA as far as the buyer of the debt is concerned. Other than that, we have not learned very much.

    What is our biggest failing of what we should have learned?

    Well, we should have learned that mark to market is sound accounting and that it should be required before we guarantee the issuance of even more debt so Citigroup and others can continue to pay their bonuses. At the very least we should be provided a better picture of how Citigroup and others are really doing. The taxpayer deserves this. And the investing public is owed this as well. But no, we did not learn anything, so we continue to guarantee and backstop more of the same that got us in trouble in the first place and transfer yet more risk to the taxpayer and the investing public that is buying this stock without the knowledge of what is really on the books.

    When Citigroup defaults on the debt, the FDIC (almost out of funds now) will have to make good on the loans since they have in essence cosigned on the loan with the FDIC guarantee. When that happens, the FDIC will have to once again raise fees (recently did this already) to insured banks to cover this and other bail out costs making banks, especially smaller banks, less able to make loans. This hurts the economy.

    And what about the FHA. How is it doing? You probably have not heard much about this agency lately. Well, it is now sitting on what may amount to 600 billion dollars of bad loans since it has been quietly guaranteeing mortgages just like the FDIC is guaranteeing bank loans to banks like Citigroup. You were probably not aware of that were you.

    All told, our guarantees of commercial debt, banking debt, GSE debt, FHA debt and others is now in the range of another 7-8 trillion dollars to be added to the 80 trillion dollars of unfunded entitlements and federal retirement, to be added to the 12 trillion dollars of current national debt, to be added to the two trillion dollars of Federal Reserve debt. What is the total? It is about $102 trillion dollars of current exposure and rising like a rocket. $102,000,000,000,000.00. = $291,000 or about five times the combined net worth of all citizens of America. Is this sustainable? Are you seeing the magnitude of this?

    It is beginning to look to me like some giant 30 year plan to buy off legislators (create PAC’s), buy votes for bills harmful to America (campaign contributions to vote for deregulation), dumb down education (create a federal department of stupid), transfer jobs overseas (needless bad trade agreements with built in American job losses) , remove legislative safeguards to the financial system (removal of Glass-Steagle, Community Reinvestment Act, Commodity Futures Modernization Act, others), and encourage a financial debacle to occur (what else could be the expected result of destroying discretionary incomes?) so the government can then step in and take care of the growing population of needy now that the economy is in shambles.

    Or maybe all of this is just a long stream of coincidence, and bad outcome. Unlikely, but still a remote possibility.

    Question.

    Why does Citigroup have to borrow anything given the Fed rate of 0% means they have no cost of goods sold? Why can’t their free cash flow support their cash needs?

    Answer:

    Citigroup is a busted bank with tens of billions of dollars of over valued junk still on their books nearly three years after the housing bubble began to pop in late 2006. Three years and no progress. And thanks to the idiocy of Congress and the elimination of mark to market, Citigroup is not even required to disclose this or other financial impairments to the taxpayer that is being forced to guarantee even more debt for this loser, nor to the investing public that is investing funds to buy the stock.

    What have we learned? Nothing.

    Folks, this is no different than making a mortgage loan and not verifying the ability of the borrower to repay the loan which just happened to be one of the bad practices that got us in this mess in the first place.

    To big to fail is now even bigger. Citigroup has now morphed into “Bigger than Too Big to Fail”.

    This is simply more madness.

    The time for tea parties has passed.

    The time for voter revolution is coming in 2010.

    Fire Them All.

    Never Vote for an Incumbent.

    One Term Allowed.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2009, at 5:19 PM, lasvegaslf wrote:

    And my broker told me to buy more shares in Citi today, before this news came out !!

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2009, at 5:22 PM, plange01 wrote:

    a smart move by citi getting some of its shares off the market...buy back as much as they can!

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Jimtin wrote:

    Yeah, everybody feel sorry for poor old Citigroup. All they did was send out notices to their "paying" credit card holders that their interest rates would be going through the ceiling no sooner than getting the bailout money from Uncle Sam. I opted out of all of their nonsense and this is one customer who hopes Citigroup fails miserably, and in the worst way possible. I sincerely hope they have the taxpayers "in their hair" for generations to come.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2009, at 5:58 PM, jpsauvage wrote:

    I suppose it would be the height of naivete to assume that Citi's somewhat subpar credit score has resulted in astronomical monthly late payments and a 28% interest rate compounded daily????

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2009, at 7:28 PM, mtracy9 wrote:

    Now if we could just get AIG to pay back the $123 billion loaned to it, we will have really accomplished something.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2009, at 7:59 PM, done4nau wrote:

    Citibank wants the federal gov't out so that they can go back to paying out monstrous bonuses. Tacky, tacky, tacky and greedy beyond just normally bad. The powerful in this country tend to be EVILLY GREEDY. I hope that some severely restricting laws curtail their actions. To Quote the Church Lady (from SNL) "God will getya for that." She also said when confronted with bad stuff, "Must be SATAN!" and that about covers the entire financial system in this country.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2009, at 8:51 PM, oceantraveller wrote:

    Rebalance - sell 5 percent of C and check FNET - just gain 90 percent and maybe have momentum for another 100 percent .

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2009, at 8:50 AM, LessGovernment wrote:

    Correcting the above:

    Should have read:

    All told, our guarantees of commercial debt, banking debt, GSE debt, FHA debt and others is now in the range of another 7-8 trillion dollars to be added to the 80 trillion dollars of unfunded entitlements and federal retirement, to be added to the 12 trillion dollars of current national debt, to be added to the two trillion dollars of Federal Reserve debt. What is the total? It is about $102 trillion dollars of current exposure and rising like a rocket. $102,000,000,000,000.00. = $291,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country or about five times the combined net worth of all citizens of America. Is this sustainable? Are you seeing the magnitude of this?

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2009, at 10:45 AM, maplewoodman wrote:

    scenario:

    your friend owns a house worth $250K, but has no income. He asks to borrow some money to keep his business going. You lend him $250K, and then 3 months later you lend him $270K, and he gives you one third ownership of his house, which is now worth $210K.

    Why would anyone do that?

    Fact:

    $52B pumped into Citi, when the Mkt Cap was less than $25B, and the Govt (er.. the taxpayers) only own one third?

    What kind of BS is this?

    Keep your fingers crossed that we get out of this breaking even!

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2009, at 1:31 PM, SmartSaver22 wrote:

    The handing over of yet more taxpayer money to CitiGroup has temporarily avoided a truly systemic breakdown of the world banking system but, as always, the real problems have not been addressed and the inevitable collapse has just been delayed.

    Bloomberg reported that "Citigroup will cover the first $29 Billion of pre-tax losses from the $306 Billion troubled assets pool, in addition to reserves it already set aside.Citigroup will accept 10% of losses above that amount with the Government (ie the taxpayer), responsible for 90%. The Treasury is absorbing $5 Billion in losses and the F.D.I.C. absorbing another $10 Billion. If the portfolio plummets, the Fed will come up with a loan for the remainder." Citigroup has already received $25 Billion under T.A.R.P..

    CitiGroup has 185 million credit card accounts worldwide and even before the current stage of the Financial crisis, the increase in losses year on year had surged to 67% with a concurrent increase in accounts 90 days or more past due. Credit defaults are rising and it is inevitable that this major source of income will be reducing all the time. Nothing has occurred to enable the credit card debtors to pay back what they owe or to stop the exponential charges which accumulate when payments are overdue. The longer they are overdue, the more difficult to pay the debt back. So we can assume that CitiGroup will be extremely vulnerable on this front and incur more losses.

    ---------------------------------

    Look after your pennies, and your pounds will look after themselves.

    http://www.personalbudgetinvesting.com

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2009, at 1:57 PM, plange01 wrote:

    taxpayers can wait for citi.we need to get GM closed and retrieve as much tax dollars as possible from this disgrace...

  • Report this Comment On September 16, 2009, at 3:00 PM, MORK000 wrote:

    If they took all CEO's and dropped their pay just 30% you would recover your losses if you owned Citi stock. These CEO's do not need the money they would lose because they got it already re-invested.

  • Report this Comment On September 18, 2009, at 4:20 PM, stonebusted wrote:

    I am as big a capitolist as they come. Still there is a flicker of right and wrong in me.

    How can these companies be allowed to raise credit card rates, foreclose on homes, they sold the bs in the beginning, while the feds help only the able consumer. The lendors misled the borrowers into the trap, not everyones a finacial expert. Some are plain stupid.

    I can only conclude that the government keeps an open season on honest,but not to smart people, while protecting the elite who should not need protection.

    Next time the elites need something fixed, moved, or dug someone should stick a TARP up their anus.

    It might surprise a lot of people as to whitch group they fall into. Me, I'm pretty stupid and not all that honest. I also rarely feel lonely.

  • Report this Comment On September 19, 2009, at 12:57 AM, stockmajor wrote:

    Negativity abounds. Perhaps, rightfully so. However, what should we do instead? Should we allow the big insolvent banks to fail? As the Treasury Secretary said in 1929, "Liquidate the banks, liquidate the businesses, liquidated the workers...etc.", or words similar to that. Well, we know how that worked out. It led to the Great Depression. Read Galbraith's book.

    Yes, the whole thing is smoke and mirrors...a sham. And I'm glad our government has the good sense to run it that way. I believe it is their intent to maintain the fantasy long enough to let these big banks earn their way out of the mess. Given enough time they will.

    Do you believe for a minute that Citi and BofA won't be here years from now? Well, they will. Our government will not let them fail. Therefore, I am long these stocks. Check back in a few years and you will see that this was a correct call.

    What all of this debt will do to our economy is hard to say. Yes, it is scary, but I'll take the plan we are playing over the one the Hoover administration followed years ago. And we all better hope it works out a lot better this time around.

    Good luck and God bless.

  • Report this Comment On September 20, 2009, at 4:35 PM, multi007 wrote:

    Patience is a virtue. Americans can be patient and place a 4 year time frame on the sale of their C ownership. By then, the company will be higher than it is today and will make a profit. Im not sure why everyone is trying to bury Citibank so soon after we sunk 50 billion dollars into it?

    Its just like the people who sold when the market was down in March 2009. Those same people stayed on the sidelines while the market recovered 50% since 3/09.

    Good or bad, USA has a 50 billion dollar stake in C and we should leave them alone for a few years and let the recession and the market recover. We may all find out that we stand to make a rather nice profit if we do.

  • Report this Comment On September 21, 2009, at 8:55 PM, thisislabor wrote:

    Im not sure why everyone is trying to bury Citibank so soon after we sunk 50 billion dollars into it?

  • Report this Comment On September 22, 2009, at 3:14 PM, IRS706 wrote:

    This looks like a split decision. The federal government's preferred is 8% which means Citi must earn 11% on the $27 billion in order to pay out 8% after income taxes (27% rate). Paying back the preferred can be a good decision, unless they can earn 12+% on it - raise those charge card fees!!!

    Having the government dump that common will depress the price and hurt the current shareholders for no benefit. As a shareholder I like the thought of some adult supervision, and don't mind if Uncle Sam makes money alongside me (maybe even enough to cover AIG).

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 984995, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 2/10/2012 10:37:24 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 21 minutes ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,801.23 -89.23 -0.69%
S&P 500 1,342.64 -9.31 -0.69%
NASD 2,903.88 -23.35 -0.80%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

2/10/2012 4:00 PM
C $32.93 Down -0.74 -2.18%
Citigroup Inc CAPS Rating: ***
JPM $37.61 Down -0.25 -0.66%
JPMorgan Chase & C… CAPS Rating: ***
GS $114.12 Down -1.76 -1.52%
Goldman Sachs Grou… CAPS Rating: ***
BAC $8.07 Down -0.11 -1.34%
Bank of America Co… CAPS Rating: ***

Advertisement