Excellent! :w00t:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36062775/ns/business-washington_post/
QuoteU.S. set to make $8 billion from bailing out Citi
Obama administration is preparing to sell its stake in the bank, sources say
By David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writer
updated 4:13 a.m. ET March 27, 2010
Among the banks that rule Wall Street, Citigroup got a bailout that was bigger than the rest. Now the company is about to pay a king's ransom for its federal rescue.
The Obama administration is making final preparations to sell its stake in the New York bank, according to industry and federal sources.
At today's prices, the sale would net more than $8 billion, by far the largest profit returned from any firm that accepted bailout funds and the transaction would be the second-largest stock sale in history.
On paper, the government's 27 percent stake has grown in value to $33 billion. The size of the deal in the works has Wall Street buzzing. Only the stock offering by Japan's Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, which raised $36.8 billion in 1987, was larger, according to Thomson Reuters.
Leading financial firms, including J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, are vying to be chosen as the deal's underwriters to gain the prestige of managing a historic stock sale as well as the fees from investors who buy the shares.
To improve their chances, some banks, such as Goldman Sachs, are offering their services to the Treasury Department at almost no cost, industry officials familiar with the matter said.
Sign of bailout's success
The windfall expected from the stock sale would amount to a validation of the rescue plan adopted by government officials during the height of the financial panic, when the banking system neared the brink of collapse.
A year ago, Citigroup's stock hovered around a dollar a share, and the bank's future seemed in doubt. On Friday, the stock closed at $4.31.
If the sale proceeds as planned, Citigroup would be able to cut nearly all of its ties to the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program. Meanwhile, the administration could highlight the profit generated from the rescue of big banks.
"It's unprecedented to do [a stock sale] of this size right after the financial industry has been so battered," said an industry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly. "It's just a very bullish sign."
The Treasury, as well as the Wall Street firms, declined to comment on the stock sale.
Citigroup's performance has lagged behind its rivals in Lower Manhattan. In January, the company announced a $1.6 billion loss for 2009. By comparison, J.P. Morgan Chase earned $11.7 billion. But Citigroup's executives said at the time that they saw its business stabilizing, allowing the company to set aside less money in the last three months of 2009 to cover losses than it did for the same period of 2008.
Citigroup was among nine major banks that were the first to take bailout funds in October 2008, and all have returned their federal loans. In addition to these repayments, the Treasury has received interest, dividends and about $3.5 billion from the sale of warrants, which are contracts allowing a holder to buy a company's stock in the future.
Lower than expected costs
The true cost of rescuing the financial system, however, is not yet known. Senior Treasury officials have said that they expect the ultimate cost of TARP to be less than $100 billion. Besides TARP programs, mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have received more than $125 billion in federal aid. There is no indication that either firm will be able to repay the government anytime soon.
Yet many economists say that rescuing large Wall Street firms has come at a much lower cost than expected.
During the height of the financial crisis in October and November of 2008, Citigroup got more than $45 billion in federal aid in exchange for preferred shares. The government later restructured that package. Officials converted $20 billion into a loan, and the remaining $25 billion was converted in September into common stock at the price of $3.25 a share.
Citigroup was the only bank that gave common shares to the government, because the firm was in worse shape than its rivals and couldn't promise to repay its aid entirely in cash.
In December, the bank announced it would raise money from investors to repay the $20 billion loan. The Treasury said at that time that it would sell its Citigroup shares in phases this year, beginning with a $5 billion deal.
The value of the government's stake had grown to $33.1 billion at the end of regular trading Friday.
By issuing stock and giving it to the government last year, Citigroup had diluted the value of stock held by existing shareholders. The company could ratify a reverse stock split to enhance the value of shares.
Last fall, the bank's shareholders approved a proposal by the company's board of directors to speed a reverse stock split before June 30.
© 2010 The Washington Post Company
When do I get my check? :)
It's been a good week for Obama.
But how much is it set to lose?
Maybe the White House should run all US banks?
No, it's not excellent. We don't want to go back to the West India and South Seas Company days.
Quote from: Palisadoes on March 27, 2010, 11:17:05 AM
It's been a good week for Obama.
I'm so glad that Obama oversaw the passing of TARP.
Quote from: Caliga on March 27, 2010, 10:20:03 AM
When do I get my check? :)
Hopefully they take it off your tab.
Actually I always believed we'd turn a profit on some of the investments we (the people) made during the height of the financial crisis.
Unfortunately at least $500 bn if not more essentially evaporated.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 27, 2010, 01:09:58 PM
Actually I always believed we'd turn a profit on some of the investments we (the people) made during the height of the financial crisis.
Unfortunately at least $500 bn if not more essentially evaporated.
Otto! It's been a while. Good to see you posting again.
You have me to thank for that, you crusty old son of a bitch.
Quote from: Jaron on March 27, 2010, 04:34:26 PM
You have me to thank for that, you crusty old son of a bitch.
Don't be mean to Grumble's mom like that - she was queen of Palmyra.
So why do they need JP Morgan or Goldman? Can't Citibank just sell the stocks itself?
Quote from: Zanza on March 27, 2010, 07:43:57 PM
So why do they need JP Morgan or Goldman? Can't Citibank just sell the stocks itself?
Citi is a straight commercial bank. Stock underwriting is an investment banking activity.
Citi is a universal bank and does offer investment banking and brokerage services. Over the years they acquired Salomon Brothers and Smith Barney, among others.
With a deal this size, it is typical for a syndicate to be used; also, a outside bank may be desirable as an lead underwriter to reduce perception of conflicts of interest.
Apparently it is looking like AIG isn't going to be especially expensive either (losses maybe in the $15 billion range). At the end of the day TARP may be a major success story. (at least the parts that didn't go to auto makers)
Quote from: alfred russel on March 29, 2010, 01:10:20 PM
Apparently it is looking like AIG isn't going to be especially expensive either (losses maybe in the $15 billion range). At the end of the day TARP may be a major success story. (at least the parts that didn't go to auto makers)
I think some of it was used for home weatherization and mortgage reduction too.
The funny thing about weatherization is that the money could be much better used on the condos that the rich people have, than the old houses that the poor people have. All of those new shitboxes that were built during the boom are of very shoddy construction when it comes to insulation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 29, 2010, 05:27:32 PM
I think some of it was used for home weatherization and mortgage reduction too.
I thought at least home weatherization was stimulus, but it doesn't matter--both of those programs are failures because very few took advantage of them, and hence not very especially expensive. :P
Some states haven't renovated a single house yet.
I want to upgrade my kitchen and get a tankless water heater. Can I get some stimulus? I am going to do it anyway, so it's a waste if so...
There was a discussion of TARP today on NPR. Some economist said we're going to end up losing half the 80 billion* we put into auto makers. On top of that we're going to lose all the 190 billion we put into Freddie and Fannie, which as a seperate program from TARP.
I recall the number 40, but I can't remember for sure if that was the half or the whole. So either we lose 40 of 80 or 20 of 40.