Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Money | 02/27/2009 9:00 am

Treasury's New Plan Takes Up to a 36% Stake in Citigroup

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© Getty Images

In its latest attempt to quell the nation’s economic nerves, the Treasury Department announced this morning that it will increase its stake in Citigroup, news that caused the beleaguered bank’s share price to drop during premarket trading.

We can, of course, expect plenty of squawking about the horrors of nationalism in no time.

The move is designed to shore up the bank’s capital and, hopefully, spur it to lend more to people who need it. It will also protect shareholders. CNN Money stresses that the bank will not be getting any more tax dollars in the deal.

"Treasury is willing to participate in this arrangement to the extent Citigroup is able to reach agreement with its other preferred holders," the department said. "This transaction does not increase the amount of Treasury’s investment in Citigroup."

Exactly how big a chunk of the bank the government will own isn’t clear, but it could be up to 36 percent. Citibank has already received $45 billion in bailout money. But Treasury is promising to convert its security to match, dollar for dollar, the private preferred shares that are converted into common stock — up to $25 billion. The bank could convert as much as $27.5 billion.

The money isn’t coming without strings attached. The government wants Citigroup to get its boardroom in order in exchange for the help. Though CEO Vikram Pandit and Chairman Richard Parsons will stay put, the government has asked Citigroup to find new independent directors for its board.

All the logistics aren’t yet ironed out, but one thing’s for sure: This move will lead to even more debate about the pros and cons of nationalizing banks. In fact, one CNBC reporter just referred to the action as "creeping nationalization." Do you agree, reader?

8 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Grande Camper
I worry about Citibank.  I don’t think they have all of their wrinkles ironed out yet, so to speak.  I worry that it won’t be long and again they will be asking for more money.  Does anyone else feel this way?
By Grande Camper on 02/27/2009 10:25 am
Leslie G

Hi Debra- Yes I do. I was in Banking for 20 years and the problems that are mentioned (what little info we actually get about these problems) are long term and far reaching.

I think that this is the tip of the iceberg in "Bankland"…we’re going to see more and more Banks ask for more and more money- with little to show for it.

I am also worried that we will have a psuedo-nationalized banking system - kind of frying pan into the fire scenario. There’s just not a good solution for this problem- it’s going to get ugly any way you look at it.

 

By Leslie G on 02/27/2009 12:07 pm
Mel Berg
Thank you Leslie for you insights. I am wondering what would be your thoughts on an idea I heard floated around in the news of setting up a bad bank? One that would take all the bad assets from the big banks. I wonder if that would be a feasible idea and maybe lead to a quicker turn around.
By Mel Berg on 02/27/2009 12:22 pm
Leslie G

Hi Mel-

In a word….BAD!

I would almost insure that Banking as a whole would be nationalized.

1. The Gov is not going to let that "Bad Bank" be privately run, it would be a federal entity- maybe like the Post Office which is psuedo-federal  so VERY COMPLICATED

2. Those Banks aren’t going to just give-up those bad assets. They are going to want compensation for them - which of course our gov will give them and then the assets still have to be managed and looked after at the Bad Bank which our gov will pay for as well. It’s a double wammy.

3. Once the gov has 1 bank, it wouldn’t be a far jump to add another and another. That’s how things work. The Congress passes a bill for something and sets a precedent. It’s a slippery slope to the next step and the next. I just know like I know my middle name that once there is a gove Bad Bank, the gov Good Banks are just a matter of time. 

When I say Our Government…I really mean we the people. Our gov has no money. It doesn’t produce a product to sell and it doesn’t even perform a valuable service at this time in history. So it doesn’t earn any money. It COLLECTS money- and it’s become an avid collector.  

I wish I had a solution for this mess. I think that maybe a few (or more than a few) major Banks going belly-up would be a good thing. The assets for most Americans would be secure through the FDIC program and it would thin the herd. Even with the fed unemployment benefits  and the FDIC reimbursement to the depositors, it’d probably be less money spent on this whole fiasco.

Thanks for reading my ramblings :) 

 

By Leslie G on 02/27/2009 12:55 pm
Mel Berg
Thanks Leslie, that shines a whole new light on that idea.
By Mel Berg on 02/27/2009 1:51 pm
Grande Camper

psuedo-nationalized banking system

Now that’s scary!

By Grande Camper on 02/27/2009 12:27 pm
Libra Lady
Very scary indeed!!!
By Libra Lady on 02/27/2009 12:47 pm
Gramma J

How much do the people who reaped the bonuses and super-inflated salaries have to put into the kitty to keep them afloat?  I am totally burned by this; it’s one of those things that just eats me up.  I don’t care if they are held accountable NOW, I want it to be retroactive, and I will never be comfortable with any of this until the people who sunk the boat have to take a personal financial hit to float it again.  This is a bad path.  Make them sell their assets to someone who will manage them better for just enough to cover their debts, and then let them go belly up! 

 That’s probably not really a good idea, but I’m not feeling very reasonable right now. 

By Gramma J on 02/27/2009 1:43 pm