Continued at link......
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100419/bs_afp/uscompanybankingearningscitigroup
Citi returns to profit as CEO thanks taxpayers for bailout
- Thread starter Hot Mega
- Start date
Continued at link......
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100419/bs_afp/uscompanybankingearningscitigroup
Chief Executive Vikram Pandit said "We are determined to repay this debt by continuing to build a strong company and contribute to America's economic recovery."
Here's a suggestion. How about repaying the debt by PAYING THE MONEY BACK??? When can the tax payers expect their billions of dollars back?
Here's a suggestion. How about repaying the debt by PAYING THE MONEY BACK??? When can the tax payers expect their billions of dollars back?
They already did in December.:2 cents:
http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=4325900&postcount=1
The Treasury expects to make $7+B this year when is sells it's stake in Citi shares.
The Citi CEO was (I imagine) referring to a larger debt it owes beyond the cash.
Oh. Well that's alright then. :thumbsup:
:coolman:
:coolman:
-from pandit in the article.
really? just during this critical time? i'm pretty sure the majority of their money came from the united states even before this bailout. they are a major dealer in us treasury securities as well as all the people who have/had credit cards, insurance, and stock with them. i know they operate in a 100+ countries but i'm pretty sure they made a large chunk of their money from the u.s. before we paid for them to stay out of the red.
Revenue - Expenses = Net Income (aka profit)
Revenue- the total amount of money received by a company for goods sold or services provided during a certain time period.
Taking that into consideration...what would it matter if they have "created" a product, service or hired additional help per se?
But I get it, signs of recovery and a strategy working...bad if the POTUS is a Demo.
I'm not an economics brain by any strech, but isn't there something terribly wrong here? There was a bipartisan panel on a political talk show lately and everyone agreed that these institutions should have failed, free from intervention from the government. I wish I had the time right now to research it, but by all accounts there was something terribly unethical, if not illegal, happening here. :dunno:
Well, you can be too fundamental in a belief and ignore reality to the point of stupidity. Allowing some teenager to make their own mistakes and live with/regroup after consequences is one thing. Allowing the domino effect of worldwide economic collapse and depression as means of teaching a lesson is fucking stupid.
The eggheads who sit around on t.v. discussing economic sport live in the think tank world of theoretical calculi. Their shit works perfectly on paper and in thesis..'cause there aren't real people and situations involved in that. Governments can't operate that way as it has real people and country to concern itself with.
As a result of the action, the economy is recovering far sooner than it likely would have had these failures and ensuing restructurings, etc. been allowed to happen.
While these eggheads may be technically right they are practically and in reality wrong.
It happened, they were bailed out, they are paying back the temporary lifeline the g'ment extended to them well ahead of time...it fucking worked so far.
It has worked far better than any endeavor the g'ment has committed itself to in quite some time....especially better than anything in recent political history. What more do you want??:crash:
B/S Scott if you're having trouble figuring it out...just say to yourself, "..the shit worked" until you can actually understand what happened.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
If Vikram Pandit showed up at my door with his head on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to put out the fire... even if my bladder was about to burst.
With that said, I wish that there had been a mechanism to allow Citi to fail... without further destroying the national (global?) economy. But when this crisis took place, there was no such mechanism, and there still isn't!
The best/most down to earth explanation I heard, that I figure most anyone can relate to is this: imagine if you live in a town with 300 houses, all on half acre lots. One of your neighbors is a drug dealer/meth cooker. His house catches on fire while he's cooking a batch. It's really your option as to whether or not you call the fire dept. Me, depending on how close he lived to my lot, I would probably grab a bag of marshmallows and some weieners and watch the bitch burn. But now, imagine if you lived in a big condo complex, also with 300 units. What would you do if that same guy had an apartment there and it caught fire?
With community banks, and even smaller regionals, the FDIC can and does take care of the situation when they fail. We let them fail all the time. But with these huge money center financial services firms, other than the FDIC insuring the deposits (which in their case, actually adds to the problem, IMO), there is not YET a way to unwind them without putting our entire economy in jeopardy.
I don't know about anybody else, but if a meth dealer lives below me in my building, as much as I might hate him, if his apartment catches fire, I'm for putting the fire out.
But I'm having a REALLY hard time understanding why we still haven't gotten meaningful legislation to dismantle the notion of "too big to fail", two years after a crisis that could have basically destroyed the global economy. I blame both parties for this, but I'm noticing that the Republicans are particularly dragging their feet. Chuck "Theys Gonna Unplug Grandma!" Grassley has now gotten on board with legislation on derivatives. And I suspect Richard "Mushmouth" Shelby will soon be on board with financial reform legislation as well. But why the foot dragging, fellows? The very thing they seemed to be so against a couple of years ago, they now seem willing to let live forever.
With that said, I wish that there had been a mechanism to allow Citi to fail... without further destroying the national (global?) economy. But when this crisis took place, there was no such mechanism, and there still isn't!
The best/most down to earth explanation I heard, that I figure most anyone can relate to is this: imagine if you live in a town with 300 houses, all on half acre lots. One of your neighbors is a drug dealer/meth cooker. His house catches on fire while he's cooking a batch. It's really your option as to whether or not you call the fire dept. Me, depending on how close he lived to my lot, I would probably grab a bag of marshmallows and some weieners and watch the bitch burn. But now, imagine if you lived in a big condo complex, also with 300 units. What would you do if that same guy had an apartment there and it caught fire?
With community banks, and even smaller regionals, the FDIC can and does take care of the situation when they fail. We let them fail all the time. But with these huge money center financial services firms, other than the FDIC insuring the deposits (which in their case, actually adds to the problem, IMO), there is not YET a way to unwind them without putting our entire economy in jeopardy.
I don't know about anybody else, but if a meth dealer lives below me in my building, as much as I might hate him, if his apartment catches fire, I'm for putting the fire out.
But I'm having a REALLY hard time understanding why we still haven't gotten meaningful legislation to dismantle the notion of "too big to fail", two years after a crisis that could have basically destroyed the global economy. I blame both parties for this, but I'm noticing that the Republicans are particularly dragging their feet. Chuck "Theys Gonna Unplug Grandma!" Grassley has now gotten on board with legislation on derivatives. And I suspect Richard "Mushmouth" Shelby will soon be on board with financial reform legislation as well. But why the foot dragging, fellows? The very thing they seemed to be so against a couple of years ago, they now seem willing to let live forever.
