Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Citigroup always was and still is too big. After 53,000 job cuts they are still too big. They will be shorted until their death, unless the government bails them out. On principle, I am personally tired of useless bailouts and new banks who do business honestly should emerge. However, the loss of Citigroup further decreases our competitive advantage through 2010 as a capital market power. A loss in any competitive advantage just means deeper recession in the coming years.
I sort of understand why they wanted Wachovia, for the deposits. However, does it really seem like a good decision to combine two failing companies? Wells was a better choice IMO.
I wouldn't be surprised. Was looking at their balance sheet. Like 2 trillion assets, 1.95 trillion liabilities.
citi is insolvent!
what's the real value of those assets? 50 cents on a dollar? Insolvent
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
