PDA

View Full Version : More bad business from another bailed-out bank!


rockdawg21
03-09-2009, 04:31 PM
After receiving 45 billion in bailouts, Citi still chooses to reward 3.5 million to Barney Smith brokers. CONGRESS, STAY OUT OF BUSINESS AND LET BAD BANKS AND BAD COMPANIES FAIL!!!!

Citi spends $3.5M to reward Smith Barney brokers

NEW YORK Embattled banking giant Citigroup Inc. spent about $3.5 million to provide rewards for top-performing advisers at its Smith Barney brokerage unit.

The payments are in lieu of three trips Citi usually plans for its top revenue-generating advisers in the division. Those trips were canceled earlier in the year as Citi attempts to slash costs amid the ongoing economic downturn. Citi has posted five consecutive quarterly losses and received $45 billion in government assistance during the ongoing credit crisis and recession.

Many major financial firms that have received government funding in recent months have drastically scaled back spending on events and perks for employees amid growing anger from politicians in Washington about how they spend money.

Citi said none of the money from the government investment is being used for the rewards.

"This program is funded by operating revenue of Smith Barney and achieves a nearly 80 percent cost saving over some previous recognition programs," Citi spokesman Alex Samuelson said Monday.

Smith Barney generated $2.3 billion in revenue during the final quarter of 2008, a 17 percent decline from the same quarter a year earlier. For the year, revenue fell 3 percent to $10.24 billion.

Smith Barney's top 500 brokers received $3,000 debit cards, according to a story on the bonuses reported Monday by the New York Post. An additional 500 received cards for $2,000 each, with another group receiving $1,000 each.

"We will prudently balance the recognition and development needs of our best advisers with the need to manage our business during this difficult environment," Samuelson said.

As part of its ongoing plans to reduce assets and try to regain profitability, Citi is selling a majority stake in Smith Barney to Morgan Stanley. The pair will merge their brokerage operations into a joint venture, with Morgan Stanley owning a majority stake in the firm.

Late last month, Citigroup and the Treasury Department agreed on a deal that will give the government up to a 36 percent stake in Citi. The government, along with other private investors, will convert some of their $45 billion in preferred stock into common shares. If the maximum amount of preferred stock is converted, current common stockholders will see their ownership stake fall to about 26 percent.

Citi has been among the hardest hit banks by rising loan losses and defaults as well as write-downs on the value of certain investments, especially those tied to the souring residential real estate market.

Shares of Citi were steady at $1.03 in late morning trading Monday. They have traded as low as 97 cents and are down 96 percent from their 52-week high of $27.35 last April 28.

Miss Foxy
03-09-2009, 04:33 PM
After receiving 45 billion in bailouts, Citi still chooses to reward 3.5 million to Barney Smith brokers. CONGRESS, STAY OUT OF BUSINESS AND LET BAD BANKS AND BAD COMPANIES FAIL!!!! Thats right!!! Greedy corporations!!!

CAVEMAN
03-09-2009, 06:06 PM
I'm afraid we are going to see more and more of this unfortunately! Where is Moose btw? I wonder what he thinks about Obama's plan so far? It's done wonders for the country, don't you think?:blink: :ninja:

rockdawg21
03-09-2009, 06:19 PM
I'm afraid we are going to see more and more of this unfortunately! Where is Moose btw? I wonder what he thinks about Obama's plan so far? It's done wonders for the country, don't you think?:blink: :ninja:
Well, this was part of the bailout from Bush, but Obama is going to just continue with this crap. Even though his campaign was all about change, it's still more of the same - bailouts for bad companies. The only change people will see from Obama's administration will be in their pockets.

Miss Foxy
03-09-2009, 06:21 PM
Well, this was part of the bailout from Bush, but Obama is going to just continue with this crap. Here we go.......again:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

CAVEMAN
03-09-2009, 06:24 PM
Well, this was part of the bailout from Bush, but Obama is going to just continue with this crap. Even though his campaign was all about change, it's still more of the same - bailouts for bad companies. The only change people will see from Obama's administration will be in their pockets.

It's pretty sad though that we even have to clarify which bail out it is!:laugh:

rockdawg21
03-09-2009, 06:31 PM
It's pretty sad though that we even have to clarify which bail out it is!:laugh:
LOL, well, if I didn't do it, Moose would have. I was just doing Moose a favor; now he has to think of a different retort :rotfl:

CAVEMAN
03-09-2009, 06:35 PM
LOL, well, if I didn't do it, Moose would have. I was just doing Moose a favor; now he has to think of a different retort :rotfl:

:laugh:

He'll find something to exploit anyway! Here is an interesting article I found:

http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-trillions-dwarf-Bushs-dangerous-spending.html

rockdawg21
03-09-2009, 06:41 PM
:laugh:

He'll find something to exploit anyway! Here is an interesting article I found:

http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-trillions-dwarf-Bushs-dangerous-spending.html
Yeah, that's been discussed already. Obama's a hypocrite and so are many others who support him. He's selling away our, our children, our grandchildren, etc. futures away. It's almost like it's a game to him. "Hey, let's start bringing ourselves in debt and see if this works." Well, I don't know about you guys, but swiping my credit card over and over never helped me get out of debt.

Damn, I'm getting angry just thinking about this. Good thing I'm going to the gym in a few minutes, should be a great workout!

CAVEMAN
03-09-2009, 06:45 PM
Yeah, that's been discussed already. Obama's a hypocrite and so are many others who support him.

I miss all the good ones.........:banghead::laugh:

It just seems that his supporters are blindly still behind him 100%! UNREAL!

bradwright
03-09-2009, 07:12 PM
Yeah, that's been discussed already. Obama's a hypocrite and so are many others who support him. He's selling away our, our children, our grandchildren, etc. futures away. It's almost like it's a game to him. "Hey, let's start bringing ourselves in debt and see if this works." Well, I don't know about you guys, but swiping my credit card over and over never helped me get out of debt.

Damn, I'm getting angry just thinking about this. Good thing I'm going to the gym in a few minutes, should be a great workout!


lets see here,,

George bush put the US 10 trillion in debt,,

Obama 800 billion so far,even if he kept spending like that every year for as long as he could(which i'm pretty sure would be 8 years at the most) that would still only amount to about 6.4 trillion, he would still have an awfully long ways to go if he wanted to catch Georgey boy.

County Mike
03-09-2009, 07:25 PM
lets see here,,

George bush put the US 10 trillion in debt,,

Obama 800 billion so far,even if he kept spending like that every year for as long as he could(which i'm pretty sure would be 8 years at the most) that would still only amount to about 6.4 trillion, he would still have an awfully long ways to go if he wanted to catch Georgey boy.

Your math assumes that Obama stops spending right now for year 1. He's only been in office a couple months so multiply his 800 billion by 6 to get your yearly rate.

Regardless of who spent what, I still think it's a terrible idea. GM planning to file bankruptcy AFTER accepting a bailout. Banks blowing the bailout money instead of helping the people. It's all BS and it needs to stop.

bradwright
03-09-2009, 08:28 PM
Your math assumes that Obama stops spending right now for year 1. He's only been in office a couple months so multiply his 800 billion by 6 to get your yearly rate.

Regardless of who spent what, I still think it's a terrible idea. GM planning to file bankruptcy AFTER accepting a bailout. Banks blowing the bailout money instead of helping the people. It's all BS and it needs to stop.

your right it doesn't matter who spent what really,
everybody could argue forever over that when in fact thats not the main issue here,
as far as GM taking bail out money and then talk about bankruptcy after?
i think last year at the beginning of all this they might have over estimated there future sales,and trust me there not the only ones,

and when it comes to the banks,well,they just dont seem to understand that if the money the government gave them doesn't reach the people that need it then the economy will suffer even further and their abillity to be profitable in the future will be gone.

dont get me wrong here,if there was some other way to do this then i would say great,
but there isn't,you see the problem with just letting them all go under is what it would do to the economy,everybody is so dependent on everyone else making and spending money that if you took to big of a hit all at the same time then it would be devastating to a lot of people,

the flow of cash is essential for any countrys economy to work and if people are going to be scared about what the future holds and start to save all their money instead of spending it then the government at some point really needs to step in and literally throw some money around to keep the economy going,

this really isn't about how much money is being spent anymore,its about staving off one of the biggest financial collapses the world has ever seen,
because if that happens most people wont be worrying about their mortgage payment as much as they would be wondering where their next meal is coming from,

with the way the whole world is getting caught up in this its a lot bigger problem then most people realize,

somebody put it into perspective for me(i think it was goat but not sure)when they simply posted in another thread some where,
21/12/2012,and that could be a very real possibility,

CAVEMAN
03-09-2009, 08:42 PM
lets see here,,

George bush put the US 10 trillion in debt,,

Obama 800 billion so far,even if he kept spending like that every year for as long as he could(which i'm pretty sure would be 8 years at the most) that would still only amount to about 6.4 trillion, he would still have an awfully long ways to go if he wanted to catch Georgey boy.

Did you see the link I posted. http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/O...-spending.html

The article says that if Obama keeps up the spending he already has done and proposed, it will far out do what Bush did.

bradwright
03-09-2009, 09:15 PM
Did you see the link I posted. http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/O...-spending.html

The article says that if Obama keeps up the spending he already has done and proposed, it will far out do what Bush did.

i missed that actually so i went back and read it,,
i guess i was a little off on my numbers(but i will never admit it)
but the thing that strikes me as being odd about the whole thing is
a lot of people cant seem to get past the fact that Obama is spending billions long enough to ask themselves why is he spending billions,
your country is not alone here,

in Canada we are pretty much in the same boat,except our banking system is in pretty good shape,
but that still isn't stopping us from being sucked into the US born recession,

our government is throwing around money like drunken sailors up here also,
not that i like it anymore then you do but its something that wont stop soon,

i think a little less fighting about who is spending what and quite a bit more energy on some solutions might be the thing everyone should be focusing on here.

rockdawg21
03-09-2009, 10:06 PM
lets see here,,

George bush put the US 10 trillion in debt,,

Obama 800 billion so far,even if he kept spending like that every year for as long as he could(which i'm pretty sure would be 8 years at the most) that would still only amount to about 6.4 trillion, he would still have an awfully long ways to go if he wanted to catch Georgey boy.
When GB came into office, the national debt was approx. 6 trillion, by the time he left, it was 9 trillion, so to say GB put us 10 trillion in debt is incorrect - it sounds like something CNN would say.

Within Obama's first month of being President, he thought it would be a good idea to add another 800 billion to that debt. Now I agree, it's great that he's investing into new programs, but to promise to cut earmark spending "line by line" then retract the promise, invest into failing companies, mandating strict government control in a free society, etc. is completely irresponsible.

bradwright
03-09-2009, 10:32 PM
When GB came into office, the national debt was approx. 6 trillion, by the time he left, it was 9 trillion, so to say GB put us 10 trillion in debt is incorrect - it sounds like something CNN would say.

Within Obama's first month of being President, he thought it would be a good idea to add another 800 billion to that debt. Now I agree, it's great that he's investing into new programs, but to promise to cut earmark spending "line by line" then retract the promise, invest into failing companies, mandating strict government control in a free society, etc. is completely irresponsible.
there is no point trying to discuss this with you at all,,
you dont see the big picture here,

rockdawg21
03-09-2009, 10:57 PM
there is no point trying to discuss this with you at all,,
you dont see the big picture here,
The point you stated is that Bush put us 10 trillion in debt, which is not correct, his effective increase was 3 trillion (from 6 trillion to 9 trillion). I'm not saying what he did was right, but reporting he caused 10 trillion is a twist of facts.

Now your statement about Obama:
Obama 800 billion so far,even if he kept spending like that every year for as long as he could(which i'm pretty sure would be 8 years at the most) that would still only amount to about 6.4 trillion, he would still have an awfully long ways to go if he wanted to catch Georgey boy.
would mean that Obama would DOUBLE the amount that Bush increased the U.S. deficit. Yes, I'm missing the big picture here.

Is this big enough? (full article: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm)
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/Debt_GDP.png

bradwright
03-09-2009, 11:42 PM
actually the debt was 5 trillion when bush entered office and 10.5 trillion when he left,
but whats a few trillion here and there,
your graft showing the GDP in relation to your national debt is a nice touch,but useless,really quite pretty though,

and when i said you dont see the big picture i know thats really not true,
i'm just wondering why you choose to ignore it.

rockdawg21
03-10-2009, 12:06 AM
So, you can't read a graph? Those red bars indicate the amount of debt. Look at the one above 2000, it's not at the 5 trillion mark. Look at the one at 2008, it's not at the 10 trillion mark.

bradwright
03-10-2009, 12:10 AM
So, you can't read a graph? Those red bars indicate the amount of debt. Look at the one above 2000, it's not at the 5 trillion mark. Look at the one at 2008, it's not at the 10 trillion mark.
like i said,,your graph is real pretty but not of very much use.

bradwright
03-10-2009, 12:26 AM
ok Rockdog21,lets see if we understand each other here,



black

rockdawg21
03-10-2009, 01:26 AM
ok Rockdog21,lets see if we understand each other here,



black
Obviously. I provide you with a graph of the U.S.' national debt, and you haven't any idea how to read it even after provided brief instructions.

I'm definitely done discussing this with you, as there's nothing to discuss when all you have to say is, "there is no point trying to discuss this with you at all,,
you dont see the big picture here," You refuse to provide the "big picture", so yes, it's very black.

So why doesn't the Almighty enlighten the rest of us?

logrus
03-10-2009, 01:36 AM
War Bush :punch:

bradwright
03-10-2009, 01:38 AM
Obviously. I provide you with a graph of the U.S.' national debt, and you haven't any idea how to read it even after provided brief instructions.

I'm definitely done discussing this with you, as there's nothing to discuss when all you have to say is, "there is no point trying to discuss this with you at all,,
you dont see the big picture here," You refuse to provide the "big picture", so yes, it's very black.
if you were even half as smart as you think you are you would understand what your complaining about has nothing to do with what the real problem is,
hence,THE BIG PICTURE.

i already explained what the real problem is,,just take the time to read a couple of my earlier posts,

and when i said black you replied with,"so yes,its very black"?

some how i was sure you would have said WHITE,

rockdawg21
03-10-2009, 01:46 AM
if you were even half as smart as you think you are you would understand what your complaining about has nothing to do with what the real problem is,
hence,THE BIG PICTURE.

i already explained what the real problem is,,just take the time to read a couple of my earlier posts,

and when i said black you replied with,"so yes,its very black"?

some how i was sure you would have said WHITE,
You mean global market collapse? I'm aware of that, but I still have every right to point out facts and complain about irresponsible government spending and bad business. In the meantime, I'm going to keep posting articles such as these. :)
If you want to start a thread about the big picture, that's up to you. The point of this thread was the article. Happy I don't do business with these jerks!

bradwright
03-10-2009, 02:13 AM
You mean global market collapse? I'm aware of that, but I still have every right to point out facts and complain about irresponsible government spending and bad business. In the meantime, I'm going to keep posting articles such as these. :)
If you want to start a thread about the big picture, that's up to you. The point of this thread was the article. Happy I don't do business with these jerks!
i understand what your saying and i agree with you,
all i'm trying to say is without the so called irresponsible government spending
with in a year or two the global economy will be at a stand still and the 800 billion dollars that would have went to keeping people employed could instead be used to buy a couple loafs of bread and a jug of milk,
thats if you were lucky enough to find them for sale some where,

rockdawg21
03-10-2009, 02:43 AM
i understand what your saying and i agree with you,
all i'm trying to say is without the so called irresponsible government spending
with in a year or two the global economy will be at a stand still and the 800 billion dollars that would have went to keeping people employed could instead be used to buy a couple loafs of bread and a jug of milk,
thats if you were lucky enough to find them for sale some where,
Yeah, things are crazy. If you know anything about the increase in rice last year, it tripled in a few months. My wife was still in the Philippines at that time and I noticed she was mentioning eating oats. When I asked her if it was due to the high cost of rice, she said that a lot of Filipinos began buying oats. It's much more healthy and filling, which is great, but that's scary to think the staple food of a large world region could be too expensive to purchase.