Tag Archives: Citibank

Citi Is Confused Why People Read “Bearish Stories,” by Tyler Durden

From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

In his daily note to clients, Citi’s Brent Donnelly is confused: he asks why do people focus on “bearish news” and shows a Google trends chart to support his theory. This is what he said:

Give the people what they want

In an email I sent Monday, I was critical of the financial media for highlighting bearish stories but ignoring bullish ones. I was thinking about this and realized that maybe you can’t blame the commentators… People just gravitate towards bad news—humans are much more interested in watching a car crash or shooting on TV than a feel-good story.

I looked at Google searches related to the stock market. The results (Chart1) speak for themselves. My conclusion is that it’s not fair to blame Zerohedge and friends for the permabear newsflow… They’re just giving the people what they want!

Since this is a topic we have covered extensively over the years, we won’t waste much time responding to Mr. Donnelly and instead reply in pithy kind:

What people want is not bearish news, what they want is the truth, something they, for whatever reason, feel they can’t get from the mainstream media, which in turn has opened up opportunities to alternative media outlets such as “Zerohedge and friends.” Incidentally, these outlets are not only not permabears – we remind Mr. Donnelly that our “trade of the year” which we presented on February 12, and which returned 30% in just two days was to go long Chesapeake bonds – but are observations always backed by facts, virtually all of which have to do with documenting and narrating the plight of an overhyped recovery which never took place (something which incidentally the following slide from, uh… Citi, shows)

To continue reading: Citi Is Confused Why People Read “Bearish Stories”

 

Is The Brown Stuff About To Hit The Fan? by Dave Kranzler

Dave Kranzler, on his blog Investment Research Dynamics, points out an interesting parallel:

Set aside for a moment the fact that the S&P 500 just closed down 4 days in a row – something which never happened in 2014. Zerhohedge had an interesting post today in which it wondered if Citibank was the next AIG (LINK) after it discovered that Citi is now the largest single holder of derivatives in the U.S., with $70.3 trillion in notional exposure holdings.

Not pointed out by Zerohedge was an interesting relationship between Citi and Goldman Sachs. Recall, that Goldman Sachs was AIG’s biggest counter-party. And the fact of the matter is that Goldman would have blown up along with AIG had the Government and the Fed – with close to a trillion dollars in taxpayer money – not bailed out AIG and the big banks. Let’s wipe the lipstick off that pig and call it what it was: An AIG/Goldman Sachs de facto collapse.

Recall that Henry Paulson was Treasury Secretary when Goldman de facto collapsed. Paulson was the former CEO of Goldman and had been appointed Treasury Secretary in July 2006. As it turns out, Goldman had been impaled on AIG’s nuclear mortgage -derived credit default swaps, to which GS was the main counter-party. I have always suspected that Paulson was inserted into the Treasury post because “they” knew that eventually the big banks – led by Goldman – were going to hit the derivatives wall and a Wall Street bank representative inside the Treasury would be needed to fix the problem.

Fast-forward to today. Who is the Treasury Secretary? Jack Lew. Jack Lew worked at Citibank up until late 2010, when he was moved into Government “service” as Director of the OMB. After that he was appointed Obama’s Chief of Staff. In 2013 Obama appointed him to be Treasury Secretary. Lew is clearly a political beast but I find it interesting that a former Citi employee is now Treasury Secretary at a time when Citi is now the largest derivatives owner in the U.S. and the 2nd largest in the world (Deutsche Bank is #1).

And, Zerohedge points out, Citibank was the primary force behind the recent legislation passed by Congress – legislation that was buried into the controversial budget Bill – which allows banks to move their derivatives into their FDIC insured subsidiary. This legislation, by the way, is a de facto bailout-in-advance for the Too Big To Fail Banks. Remember, Obama promised no more bank bailouts. Once again he lied.

At any rate, it may of course be just a mere coincidence that Paulson was appointed to Treasury Secretary about 2 years before Goldman blew up on derivatives and Lew was appointed Treasury Secretary, well, about 2 years before Citi might blow up on derivatives. I mean, why else would Citi aggressively push for FDIC coverage of its derivatives exposure if it were not worried about fomenting risks? By the way, Citi has now moved all of its derivatives into its FDIC-covered subsidiary and it’s the only bank to have done so.

Mere coincidence? Maybe. But when blood money is at stake, nothing happens by coincidence.

http://investmentresearchdynamics.com/is-the-brown-stuff-about-to-hit-the-fan/

Citigroup’s equity is a little over $212 billion, or about 1/330 of its notational derivative exposure. Not to worry, though, because much of that exposure is netted out against offsetting positions. It would only become a problem if one or more of the bank’s counterparties were unable to meet their commitments, and that hasn’t happened since…2008. Well, maybe worry just a little bit, because should that happen, a .3 percent move against Citibank’s derivatives would wipe out its equity, and you know who would be on the hook.