Money | 02/27/2009 9:00 am
Treasury's New Plan Takes Up to a 36% Stake in Citigroup

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
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.
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 :)
psuedo-nationalized banking system
Now that’s scary!
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.