More

Treasury's Citi Shares To Go On Sale This Year

Treasury Citigroup Shares

STEVENSON JACOBS   03/29/10 07:10 PM ET   AP

NEW YORK — Bank bailouts are turning out to be great business for the government. Unfortunately for taxpayers, other federal rescues will almost certainly wind up in the red.

The Treasury Department said Monday it will begin selling its stake in Citigroup Inc. at a potential profit of about $7.5 billion – not a bad haul for an 18-month investment.

The move is a major step in the government's effort to unravel investments it made in banks under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program at the height of the financial crisis.

Yet a year and a half after Congress passed the big bailout, other parts of it – particularly troubled automakers General Motors and Chrysler and insurer American International Group – show no signs of being profitable.

Despite the returns from Citi and other banks, analysts and even the Treasury Department predict the bailout will wind up costing taxpayers at least $100 billion. The bailouts of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were not included in TARP, will add billions more.

But the money the government makes off banks helps offset the damage. With the sale of the Citi shares, the eight major banks that got bailout money funds will have repaid the government in full. Those investments have netted the government $15.4 billion from dividends, interest and the sale of bank stock warrants, which gave the government the right to buy stock in the future at a fixed price.

Based on Monday's share price, selling its 27 percent stake in Citi would add about $7.5 billion in profits. The stock fell 3 percent to $4.18 a share Monday after news of the planned Treasury sales. But that still puts it well above the $3.25 a share the government paid. The government also still holds Citi stock warrants, which will add to its profits down the road.

Overall, it's a 14 percent rate of return on the $165 billion invested in the biggest banks. Hundreds of smaller banks also received money and have been paying the government a steady stream of dividends and interest.

By comparison, someone who invested money in the Standard & Poor's stock index in early October 2008, when the bailout was passed, would actually have lost about 3 percent.

"Overall, TARP may cost taxpayers money. But the banking part of it is going to be a moneymaker," banking analyst Bert Ely said. "When you strip away all that emotion," he added, "this has turned out to be a good bet."

The government's bank profits can be misleading. The banks benefited heavily from other subsidies, including the $182 billion bailout of AIG. Tens of billions of that money went to banks that had suffered losses with AIG, and the banks didn't have to repay a penny.

"It's baloney to say we've made money off the bank bailouts," said Simon Johnson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. "You have to add up all the money we've put into the economy and other firms" related to banks.

Douglas Elliott, a fellow at Brookings Institution and former investment banker at J.P. Morgan, predicted the government will lose about $100 billion on the overall bailout program. That's slightly less than Treasury's own estimate of $117 billion.

Most of those losses are for the bailouts of AIG, General Motors and Chrysler, and automaker financing arms GMAC and Chrysler Financial.

And those estimates don't include losses expected from the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In September 2008, the government seized the mortgage companies and has since pumped $126 billion into them to keep the housing market from plummeting further. That number is only expected to grow, and the Obama administration has not detailed any exit strategy.

The banks have been the one bright spot in the government's portfolio. And few benefited as much from taxpayer help as Citigroup.

Citi, one of the hardest-hit banks during the credit crisis and the recession, received a total of $45 billion in bailout money, one of the largest rescues in the TARP program.

Of the $45 billion, $25 billion was converted to the government's ownership stake in the bank. Citi repaid the other $20 billion in December.

The government received 7.7 billion shares of Citigroup in exchange for the $25 billion. It said it will sell the shares over the course of this year, depending on market conditions.

Understandably, the government will probably hold on to its shares if prices fall steeply. But Citi stock has been steadily rising with the broader market in recent months, which means the Treasury Department stands to pocket a hefty profit.

The Treasury had been planning to sell 20 percent of its stock at the time Citi was issuing new shares late last year. At a price of $3.15 a share, the government would have lost $158.7 million on the sale, so it opted to wait.

Selling at today's prices would give the government an 18 percent return on its $45 billion investment in Citigroup, according to Linus Wilson, a finance professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

But he said taxpayers could have done even better if the government had paid market value when it bought the bank's preferred shares. Instead, it paid a hefty premium to help boost the bank's capital.

"Citigroup stands to be our most profitable bank investment, bar none," Wilson said. "But we also took the most risk with Citi."

Others say that even if the government were to lose money on the deal, it was worth it.

"It kept the recession from getting considerably worse," Brookings' Elliot said. "That's worth whatever amount we end up losing."

___

AP Business Writers Daniel Wagner and Marcy Gordon in Washington and Stephen Bernard in New York contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
NEW YORK — Bank bailouts are turning out to be great business for the government. Unfortunately for taxpayers, other federal rescues will almost certainly wind up in the red. The Treasury Depar...
NEW YORK — Bank bailouts are turning out to be great business for the government. Unfortunately for taxpayers, other federal rescues will almost certainly wind up in the red. The Treasury Depar...
Filed by Grace Kiser  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 25
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:50 PM on 03/29/2010
Can't imagine why Morgan Stanley got this business.

opensecrets.org

Obama, Barack $501,981
Clinton, Hillary $391,080
Dodd, Chris $68,400
Baucus, Max $30,500
Reed, Jack $21,350
Warner, Mark $19,450
Emanuel, Rahm $16,200
Franken, Al $15,600
Richardson, Bill $14,900
Edwards, John $13,650
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ODixon
08:42 PM on 03/29/2010
Can American tax payers expect to receive a profit sharing check from this little enterprise? Yes, that's what I thought...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roy Piper
03:22 PM on 03/29/2010
Great! Another gift by the so-called Democrats to their wealthy friends. Did anyone notice how Healthcare stocks went UP the day after reform passed? Guess who REALLY won that.
02:51 PM on 03/29/2010
The government should sell those shares while they are still worth something and before the next crash.
12:58 PM on 03/29/2010
Actually selling those shares is good for all. Bove put a new target price 8.50 per/share.
12:39 PM on 03/29/2010
There are seven possible reverse stock splits on the table which have already been approved by the board. The board will be asking for an extension of the current reverse split deadline of June 30, 2010 to June 30, 2011 at the next shareholder's meeting. There are also plans to reduce the number of shares outstanding if a reverse split occurs.

Both actions will increase the stock price. The real value the market assigns the shares if these steps are taken is anyone’s guess, but the institutional investors will likely begin to wade in at a higher price per share betting on the upside potential of the stock as the economy recovers.
11:45 AM on 03/29/2010
It's funny how I don't hear the outrage of using "MY money" to own Citi shares now that Citi has paid back TARP and, oh by the way, "WE" are going to make a $7.5Billion profit. Where did the naysayers go?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roy Piper
03:20 PM on 03/29/2010
You are kidding, right??? Do you have any idea how far in the red TARP is? And even if it worked, I think bailing out the banks was morally wrong.
03:49 PM on 03/29/2010
It's morally wrong to save the millions of additional jobs that would have been lost had they let all of the banks "fail", sending the economy to depths not seen since the Depression? Do you not understand the ripple effect the big banks have on every major industry in this country? Had they been allowed to fail, the layoffs, bankruptcies, homelessness, etc... would have skyrocketed well beyond levels we've already gone through.
11:33 AM on 03/29/2010
Why the word "FINALLY" in the headline of this story? At this point the government stands to make $8 billion on it's Citi investment.

Oh wait, I know why. Because this was George Bush's idea. If it had been Obama's he would be hailed as the greatest investor of all time. Meanwhile we're stuck with Obama's failed stimulus package and unemployment stuck at 10%.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
ErnestineBass
No longer a cog in The Machine.
12:02 PM on 03/29/2010
Ummm...Bush didn't "invest" in Citibank, he BAILED THEIR SORRYARSES OUT.

Remember?
12:20 PM on 03/29/2010
Yes he did. And you and everbody else screamed about it and now you and all of us just made $7.5Bln. Still upset about it?
12:41 PM on 03/29/2010
Actually, I believe that under TARP the Treasury purchased shares of nine or so financial institutions, and CITIGROUP was one of them. Even though it was a huge investment risk, it was the right thing to do, and it happened under Bush. I did not like some of the terms being set forward by Paulson (like "nobody can hole me accountable for anything), but I have no problem saying that it happened under Bush.

I also have no problem saying it happened largely because of Bush, as well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StJames
In absentia luci tenebrae vincunt
11:19 AM on 03/29/2010
I don't see why we're selling them at this point in time, makes no sense to me. As soon as those shares begin coming on the market, I bet the price drops. Also, I don't understand why the government announced the sale. Investors will not be rushing out to buy Citi when they know the market is going to be flooded with 7.7 billion shares. I think Treasury needs a new investment adviser.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Corners
10:38 AM on 03/29/2010
anyone notice whos brokering all these deals? jpmorgan,Goldman and Morgan Stanley. these crooks are making money handover fist fixing the mess they made.

Its like paying the burglar to fix your door and locks after he got caught breaking into your house
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
ErnestineBass
No longer a cog in The Machine.
12:04 PM on 03/29/2010
If The House of Morgan were in the funeral home business, NO ONE would be buried with their dental fillings still intact.
photo
OceanSize
Don't Ask, Don't Tell is better suited to religion
10:22 AM on 03/29/2010
How very Socialist of our government.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Haitians4Obama
10:19 AM on 03/29/2010
I don't understand why such a socialist POTUS would give up his control of the banking system, after he got it!

Such a socialist I tell you!
02:50 PM on 03/29/2010
The President does not control the banking system. The banking system controls the President.