Citi Breaks the Buck

Citigroup (C) shares fell below $1 per share today, cementing its status as a penny stock. Citigroup is now the only stock in the Dow and one of six stocks in the growing list of S&P 500 stocks (AIG, ETFC, ODP, GNW, and THC) currently trading under a dollar. The only question now is when does Citi get pulled from the Dow. Although at this point does it really matter? Consider the fact that if Citi dropped to zero, given its weight in the index, it would have less than an 8 point impact on the overall price of the index.

click to enlarge

Comments

[johnnysize:]

I guess i shouldnt have sold those puts in error.

Mar 05 02:49 PM

[occdude:]

Next stop, bankruptcy.

Mar 08 02:16 PM

[Dan in mpls:]

Dammit, (Can we swear here or are we all too smart to do that?) Again, when I heard the talk of bank nationalization weeks ago, I was screaming at the TV set that Obama HAS to RUN to the nearest microphone (with a teleprompter in tow) and SCREAM AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS that he wont nationalize the banks, even if he did in effect do that later. AFTER the, um, well, whatever hits the fan, he makes the announcement to no effect. A day late and a dollar short yet again.

Mar 08 02:43 PM

[Marcap:]

Indeed! Truer words were never spoken. Let the dead rest in peace, and save the taxpayers billions which no doubt will never be repaid.

On Mar 08 05:39 PM ED K wrote:

> I can't believe we are still commenting on C,this bomb should be
> well on it's way to liquidation and imprisonment of the crooks that
> ran it.The stench of this one will linger for many a year to come.

Mar 08 08:58 PM

[Mark Bern:]

If I really thought the government could successfully bail out Citi I'd be buying now. However, Citi still has so many "off" balance sheet assets that one has to question, why are those assets not on the balance sheet? I can't help but think that if those assets were of any decent quality or value that they Citi execs would find a way to move them to the balance sheet pronto.

This company continues to be swimming in problems that haven't even been defined yet. And speaking of which, please remind me why we taxpayers are paying for what neither we nor our fearless leaders understand?

Mar 08 10:23 PM

[Marcap:]

This whole bailout thing is mind boggling to say the least, not even so much in the actual dollars involved, but rather in who those dollars are being given to. After all, what pray tell is the logic in giving 100s of billions, if not trillions of dollars, to the very same people who caused these problems in the first place? To me, that is tantamount to tossing extra money to a bank robber as he is running out the door.

It has been estimated (Bloomberg.com) that total bailouts could cost as much as $9.7 trillion before this is all said and done....bailouts which taxpayers will eventually have to repay, one way or another. Yet those are bailouts for which the majority of taxpayers will receive no significant benefit in return, at least not from the way I see it.

Of course I have no solid basis on which to determine the accuracy of that $9.7 trillion estimate, whether it is high or low, but I do know this: There are approximately 110 million households in the US. $9.7 trillion dollars divided equally among all households would result in tax-free (at least for now) income per household of approximately $88,182. Now that amount will not make anyone rich, but it is still a fair amount of money. But regardless, I would like for anyone to try and explain how giving $9.7 trillion to the banks and other failed institutions, would be more beneficial to the US economy, than giving over $88K to each and every American family. In my opinion, the first will do very little if anything to stimulate the economy, whereas the latter would stimulate it beyond belief, save many good and valuable companies, and likely result in the longest and most sustainable bull run in history, not to mention the fact that the Country would near if not reach full employment for many many years to come. So the choice should be clear... Give it to the corrupt and/or poorly run organizations to likely continue doing as they have done, or give it to the people? I for one would vote for the people.

My source for $9.7 trillion estimate:

www.bloomberg.com/apps...

On Mar 08 10:23 PM Husker Mark wrote:

> If I really thought the government could successfully bail out Citi
> I'd be buying now. However, Citi still has so many "off" balance
> sheet assets that one has to question, why are those assets not on
> the balance sheet? I can't help but think that if those assets were
> of any decent quality or value that they Citi execs would find a
> way to move them to the balance sheet pronto.
>
> This company continues to be swimming in problems that haven't even
> been defined yet. And speaking of which, please remind me why we
> taxpayers are paying for what neither we nor our fearless leaders
> understand?

Mar 08 11:54 PM

[mac.barron:]

While I agree with Marcap that giving the money to the banks is a huge waste, just giving it to individuals makes no sense either as we will all have to pay that money back someday. Better that the government just not squander that money in the first place.

Mar 09 12:04 AM

[Marcap:]

I agree! It is money that taxpayers are all going to have to pay back eventually, one way or another. But that being said, at least if the "taxpayers" receive it now, as opposed to the banks and other failing organizations, we will have had the opportunity to enjoy it in the interim. Or let's put it another way: If the government is going to take $80,000+ from you and several of your future generations to fund this mess (which it will), would you not at least like to have a say in what that money will be used for? Currently you have no say whatsoever. On the contrary, only those who have a vested interest in receiving a significant portion of that money have any say at all.

On Mar 09 12:04 AM mac.barron wrote:

> While I agree with Marcap that giving the money to the banks is a
> huge waste, just giving it to individuals makes no sense either as
> we will all have to pay that money back someday. Better that the
> government just not squander that money in the first place.

Mar 09 11:17 AM