CitiGroup eyeing merger in face of decline

AllEncompassingTrip

Recessions are planned.. The sad reality of the matter is that a small group of highly concentrated shareholders quietly exit most of the market before the "bubble" burst.. Once the bubble has burst, stocks plummet, and they buy up these "failing" companies at pennies on the dollar.. Not before these companies file for bankruptcy though, causing the average stockholders stake to become entirely worthless.. These wealthy elites make up the Fed.. They cause the bubble.. and they cause the recessions.. It's a blind transfer of wealth from the hands of many into the hands of a few.. It's the crime of the century..

DriftingByTheStorm

saveuplife wrote:

We are the middle of the worst of it, IMHO. Unemployment and Employment are LAGGING indicators. The economy turns DOWN, then companies make decisions to deal. We are at that point right now. Yes, the unemployment rate will increase from where it is now.... that's because it's a lagging indicator. Meanwhile, LEADING indicators (like the stock market) will most likely bottom soon and improve in early 2008.

The sky is dark and grey,... it's pretty damn bad.... but, it's not falling. As I said, the prediction of a 14 month recession is not an average recession.... it's well above average.

McCain lost because the President was Republican and we were in recession. It had very very little to do with him saying one sentence. But, as to your point, the fundamentals are not strong. I agree. But, I don't agree that there's no fundamentals.

Your post reminds me of the kind of stuff i heard on cnbc for an entire year.
These are intelligent folks, many of them even giving what they believe to be honest opinions about the future. I don't think they were all lying to me, they just enver saw it coming.

WHY?

The same thing that your post seems to me to illustrate ...
a static view of the future.
No assumption of variables, and no real respect for the possibilities of the market.

I can't tell you how many times i pulled my hair wanting to scream at the fuck-o's on TV saying that the market was going to bottom in the first half of 08 -- which admittedly was going to be "a tough 2 quarters" -- but that come fall, we would be bouncing back.

Of course, now these SAME people up on TV (and YOU) are saying, "Well yeah. First half of '09 doesn't look so good, but we think going in to winter things will start leveling out."

COME ON!
Why should i believe it now?
YOU are the ones that laughed at people like Peter Schiff on TV when he tried to say it plain 2 years out, why should we not now laugh right back?
???

SURE, things COULD get better going through '09.
But i think that requires a serious undervaluation of the possibility of deterorating fundamentals causing unthought-of and unimaginable consequences.

We've got countless bank failures, business bankruptcies, personal credit defaults, home foreclosures and layoffs coming up ... on the side of the government we have an all out budget crisis that could be expressed in a dozen different figures. Taxes are sure to go up at every level of government, the dollar is doing a desperate dance, there are a million variables alone between the Fed and Treasury, rates and the bond market. NO ONE can accurately predict what the outcome of these and many more pitfalls might bring. And let us NOT forget Biden's prophetic words about a test on the new president! :rolleyes:

God FORBID we have an "incident" or "crisis" of a "manufactured" sort to deal with. God forbid the MARKET have to deal with that!

Don't mind me,
but I won't be considering "buying a bottom" for quite some time,
and i sure won't be worrying about "missing the move up" either!

I'm trying to remain somewhere above "apocalyptic" in my financial market world view, but i will take a 5 year recession guaranteed at this point. There is so much fucking risk and volatility out there, this market might have a heart attack. I almost had one when i saw the New Home Builder Sentiment Index had fallen from 14 to NINE the other day. How many more "great" moments can the market takes before it just "packs up its money and never comes back", as Rick Santelli said a while back from the CBOT bond pit.

I would like more than anything for anyone to give me one cogent reason for why the market would start to "improve" soon?

Even assuming everything knowable out to 2 years has already been discounted, as many on TV assume ... what is going to move markets up in the face of increasing dissapointments month to month? Indicators will all surely suck for a while, and earnings are getting worse, not better. What if christmas sucks even worse than expected?

I mean, come on!
I'd love to put on a daisy chain, paint my face and nipples and dance around smiling at the sun, but i just don't see it. Not by mid 2009! :cool:

Fighting Hellfish

check it out, I'm not the only one wondering about dopey stadium names:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11222008/news/regionalnews/mets_may_pay_for_citi_slump_140202.htm

The Mets better not get too attached to the name Citi Field.

Team officials are said to be increasingly nervous as struggling Citigroup's stock continues to plummet - and potentially endangers their $20 million-a-year naming-rights deal for the new $850 million stadium.

Mets rep Jay Horwitz yesterday insisted, "There is no change in regard to Citi's commitment to the new ballpark."

But David Howard, the team's vice president of business affairs and main spokesman on the deal, for the first time deflected all questions back to Citigroup.

And the future doesn't look good for the financial giant.

Citigroup's stock woes are making it ripe for a takeover, and Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, HSBC and State Street Bank are already being talked about as potential buyers or merger partners.

The onetime banking titan closed at $3.77 yesterday, down 89 percent in the past year.

Despite its failing stock, Citigroup insists it will honor its record-shattering agreement to pay $20 million a year for 20 years for the honor of calling the ballpark Citi Field, where signs have already been made touting the name.

"We remain committed to the relationship to the Mets. They are an important part of our marketing priorities," said Citigroup spokesman Steve Silverman.

But if Citigroup is bought out, at least the stadium name would presumably change. Still, mega-bucks would in all likelihood be shelled out by the new company for the naming rights because of the prestige and recognition that such a high-profile stadium will bring, experts said.

Think "Goldman Sachs Diamond," "Morgan Stanley Stadium" or "HSBC Field."