More

Citigroup Was On The Verge Of Failure, New Report Finds; Rescue Was Based On 'Gut Instinct'


First Posted: 01/13/11 03:33 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:25 PM ET

Citigroup, the nation's third-largest bank by assets, was on the verge of being closed by regulators the week of Nov. 24, 2008 as depositors rapidly withdrew money and the bank's counterparties declined to provide it credit, according to a government report released Thursday.

The new findings shed light on the degree to which Citigroup, the financial services behemoth with a long history of finding itself in trouble and receiving government support, was actually in danger of failing during the fall of 2008. Until now, few were aware that Citi was perilously close to being shut down.

"We were on the verge of having to close this institution because it can't meet its liquidity Monday morning," said Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, during a meeting the previous Sunday night, according to the report by the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

"Without substantial government intervention," said another FDIC official, bank regulators and Citigroup "project that Citibank will be unable to pay obligations or meet expected deposit outflows next week," according to the report.

Yet while policy makers unanimously agreed that Citigroup needed additional help -- this was after the megabank had already received $25 billion in TARP funds -- the "strikingly ad hoc" nature of the response was troubling, notes the inspector general, known as SIGTARP.

Citigroup's problems were well known to regulators. In May 2008 -- six months before the second multi-billion dollar infusion of taxpayer cash into the lender -- regulators at Geithner's New York Fed forced the bank to create a plan to strengthen its risk-monitoring practices so it could better judge the bank's exposures.

A month later, bank overseers at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency compelled the bank to enter into another agreement, this time requiring upgrades to the firm's risk management. That agreement is still in effect today, according to SIGTARP's report.

Even so, the consensus to give Citigroup more taxpayer cash "appeared to be based as much on gut instinct and fear of the unknown as on objective criteria," according to the report. One FDIC official told SIGTARP that policy makers "made a judgment call" on the degree of Citigroup's importance to the entire fabric of the financial system.

More than three years later, such judgment calls persist. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who effectively oversaw Citigroup as the then-president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, told SIGTARP during an interview last month that it's not possible to create effective, objective criteria for evaluating the risk a financial firm poses to the system.

"It depends too much on the state of the world at the time," Geithner said Dec. 21. "You won't be able to make a judgment about what's systemic and what's not until you know the nature of the shock."

Geithner added that lenders would simply "migrate around" whatever objective criteria policy makers developed in advance.

Taxpayers may once again have to support failing financial firms based on gut instinct alone.

"In the future we may have to do exceptional things again if we face a shock that large," Geithner said, according to the report. "You just don't know what's systemic and what's not until you know the nature of the shock."

The 2010 law overhauling financial regulation, known as Dodd-Frank, gives policy makers "better tools," Geithner said, "but you have to know the nature of the shock."

Given the ambiguity, SIGTARP notes that taxpayers likely won't know the extent to which they'd be on the hook for future shocks to the system until the next crisis.

Despite the concerns about how regulators acted and how they might do so in the future, the report cautiously called the taxpayer rescue a success. Citigroup didn't fail, the financial system largely stabilized, and taxpayers turned a profit on their investment.

"We appreciate the report's conclusion that Treasury's investment in Citigroup was successful and that our efforts 'achieved the primary goal of restoring market confidence' during a time of unprecedented turmoil," Tim Massad, the Treasury official now overseeing the taxpayer bailout, said in an e-mailed statement.

As for Citigroup, despite a Feb. 22, 2009, e-mail from Bair stating that the bank needed management changes "at the top of the house," much of its senior managers remain, including its chief executive, Vikram Pandit.

In addition, the internal auditor at another government agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, is probing whether the SEC's top enforcement official, Robert Khuzami, gave preferential treatment to Citigroup executives in the agency's $75 million settlement with the firm last year over its alleged failure to adequately disclose crisis-era risks to investors, reports Bloomberg News.

*************************

Shahien Nasiripour is a business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

READ the full report:


SIGTARP Report on Citigroup

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
Citigroup, the nation's third-largest bank by assets, was on the verge of being closed by regulators the week of Nov. 24, 2008 as depositors rapidly withdrew money and the bank's counterparties declin...
Citigroup, the nation's third-largest bank by assets, was on the verge of being closed by regulators the week of Nov. 24, 2008 as depositors rapidly withdrew money and the bank's counterparties declin...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,512
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (60 total)
  1 of 12  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
Artos 11:06 AM on 01/14/2011
"Citigroup didn't fail, the financial system largely stabilized, and taxpayers turned a profit on their investment."

Wouldn't it be true to look at it this way. Citigroup was rescued by Taxes paid by American Taxpayers. Then Citigroup charges their patrons more in fees so that it can in turn pay back the Government (supposedly the Taxpayers). Now my question is this, aren't the people who do business  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elfish
07:25 AM on 01/24/2011
http://www­­.washingt­o­npost.co­m/­wp-dyn/­con­tent/a­rtic­le/20­08/06­/09/­AR2008­060­902626_­2.­html
http://www­­.youtube.­c­om/watch­?v­=Tz8rGu­_RA­0s
http://www­­.youtube.­c­om/watch­?v­=IFxZlF­p6a­tQ
http://www­­.hellomai­l­s.com/bl­og­/?p=91

3. As a result of Bush's pressue, the Sub-Primes Tripled durning that period:

http://www­­.mortgage­c­alculato­r.­org/ima­ges­/us-su­bpri­me-mo­rtgag­e-ma­rket-g­row­th.png

4. In 2005, Bush asked the congress to Regulate Fannie/Fre­­ddie. As a result, Mike Oxley (Republica­­n) and Barney Franks authored H.R. 1461 to regulate Fannie/Fre­­ddie. The bill had wide support from both parties and passed the House 331 to 90, a veto proof majority. S. 190 sponsored by McC.ain, Do.le and Sun.unu.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elfish
07:25 AM on 01/24/2011
5. BUSH KI.LLED THE BILL. 4. On October 26, 2005 publicly Bush opposed the Bill and the Senate withdrew the bill. He was talked into opposing the bill by Alan Greenspan who wanted a freemarket solution i.e. no regulation of Fannie/Fre­­ddie.

http://www­­.presiden­c­y.ucsb.e­du­/ws/ind­ex.­php?pi­d=24­851
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elfish
07:24 AM on 01/24/2011
details:

1. The Finacial Collapse was caused by Private Lenders, not Fannie/Fre­ddie. Private lenders made 84% of sub-prime loans before the crisis. Because Fannie/Fre­ddie have tougher standards, the number of subprime loans they made DROPPED by 50% during leading up to the crisis.

http://www­.mcclatchy­dc.com/200­8/10/12/53­802/privat­e-sector-l­oans-not-f­annie.html

2. This made Bush Angry, so he began pushing his "Ownership Society".
 
He said:

"By the End of the Decade we will increase Minority Home
ownership by 5 Million Families."


Bush:

"Fannie and Freddie" is committed to
increasing loans to low income families."

Bush:

"we will remove the barriers to low income lending,
including reducing down payments":


Bush:
 
"they [Fannie/Fr­eddie] will increase their commitment­s by $440 BILLION.

Bush's Hud secretary John C. Weicher said:

 "the institutio­ns [Fannie/Fr­eddie] lagged behind even the
private market and must do more."


http://www­.washingto­npost.com/­wp-dyn/con­tent/artic­le/2008/06­/09/AR2008­060902626_­2.html
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=Tz8rGu_RA­0s
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=IFxZlFp6a­tQ
http://www­.hellomail­s.com/blog­/?p=91

3. As a result of Bush's pressue, the Sub-Primes Tripled durning that period:

http://www­.mortgagec­alculator.­org/images­/us-subpri­me-mortgag­e-market-g­rowth.png

4. In 2005, Bush asked the congress to Regulate Fannie/Fre­ddie. As a result, Mike Oxley (Republica­n) and Barney Franks authored H.R. 1461 to regulate Fannie/Fre­ddie. The bill had wide support from both parties and passed the House 331 to 90, a veto proof majority. S. 190 sponsored by McCain, Dole and Sununu.

5. BUSH KI.LLED THE BILL. 4. On October 26, 2005 publicly Bush opposed the Bill and the Senate withdrew the bill. He was talked into opposing the bill by Alan Greenspan who wanted a freemarket solution i.e. no regulation of Fannie/Fre­ddie.

http://www­.presidenc­y.ucsb.edu­/ws/index.­php?pid=24­851
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elfish
07:23 AM on 01/24/2011
http://www­.washingto­npost.com/­wp-dyn/con­tent/artic­le/2008/06­/09/AR2008­060902626_­2.html
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=Tz8rGu_RA­0s
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=IFxZlFp6a­tQ
http://www­.hellomail­s.com/blog­/?p=91

3. As a result of Bush's pressue, the Sub-Primes Tripled durning that period:

http://www­.mortgagec­alculator.­org/images­/us-subpri­me-mortgag­e-market-g­rowth.png

4. In 2005, Bush asked the congress to Regulate Fannie/Fre­ddie. As a result, Mike Oxley (Republica­n) and Barney Franks authored H.R. 1461 to regulate Fannie/Fre­ddie. The bill had wide support from both parties and passed the House 331 to 90, a veto proof majority. S. 190 sponsored by McCain, Dole and Sununu.

5. BUSH KILLED THE BILL. 4. On October 26, 2005 publicly Bush opposed the Bill and the Senate withdrew the bill. He was talked into opposing the bill by Alan Greenspan who wanted a freemarket solution i.e. no regulation of Fannie/Fre­ddie.

http://www­.presidenc­y.ucsb.edu­/ws/index.­php?pid=24­851
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elfish
07:23 AM on 01/24/2011
MRAP223 Wrote:

> Watch, and learn: Bush & Republican­­s warned libs 19 times
> in 5 years of the need to tighten regs on F&F.

This stuff has been posted and Rebutted a million times. You very conviently leave all the important details:

1. The Finacial Collapse was caused by Private Lenders, not Fannie/Fre­ddie. Private lenders made 84% of sub-prime loans before the crisis. Because Fannie/Fre­ddie have tougher standards, the number of subprime loans they made DROPPED by 50% during leading up to the crisis.

http://www­.mcclatchy­dc.com/200­8/10/12/53­802/privat­e-sector-l­oans-not-f­annie.html

2. This made Bush Angry, so he began pushing his "Ownership Society".
 
He said:

"By the End of the Decade we will increase Minority Home
ownership by 5 Million Families."


Bush:

"Fannie and Freddie" is committed to
increasing loans to low income families."

Bush:

"we will remove the barriers to low income lending,
including reducing down payments":


Bush:
 
"they [Fannie/Fr­eddie] will increase their commitment­s by $440 BILLION.

Bush's Hud secretary John C. Weicher said:

 "the institutio­ns [Fannie/Fr­eddie] lagged behind even the
private market and must do more."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JacksonAndy78
Usury Interest FEEDS BANKSTERS
08:07 AM on 01/18/2011
How Financial Crisis will lead to America's decline.

The economists brain deficiency of seeing patterns, equilibria and stable systems where there are absolutely none.

SYSTEMS are NOT in equilibrium, but constantly adapting decentralized interdependent systems.

Economists teach Equilibrium ignoring the complexities. Geopolitical systems operate quite close to the edge of chaos and can just fall apart if we do not have a credible fiscal policy. Get the currency wrong and the EMPIRE fails completely.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carolab
Walking an 87-year-old in the sand isn't easy
01:43 PM on 01/17/2011
Khuzami is under investigation for helping CITIGROUP DEFRAUD INVESTORS!

Read up at Bloomberg News article from January 12, 2011

HP won't let me post the link!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carolab
Walking an 87-year-old in the sand isn't easy
05:42 PM on 01/17/2011
HP reported on this January 11.
 
But everyone was too interested in that situation in Tucson to pay attention.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
12:06 PM on 01/18/2011
Not quite, Carolab.  Khuzami is not under investigation for helping Citigroup defraud investors.  Far from it.  Don't worry about the Bloomberg News link; their op eds are not reliable sources of facts.
 
The SEC is investigating an anonymous unsigned letter provided to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) alleging Khuzami gave Citicorp officials who were being investigated by SEC for possible civil fraud favoritism in dropping the civil fraud charges and instead levying $75 million in fines against the two men. 
 
"By not telling the staff about this conversation before it happened, the director directly violated recommendations by Inspector General Kotz in previous reports about how such special access and preferential treatment can cause serious appearance problems concerning fairness and integrity of decisions that are made by the enforcement division," the note said. 
 
http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/219377
 
After serving his first year as the SEC's enforcement director, Robert Khuzami is now calling for improving the protections for whistleblowers, and even rewarding them for turning in their bosses or co-conspirators.  Khuzami proposes "cooperation agreements" that could assure whistleblowers that they will receive leniency or exemption from SEC enforcement action, or legal assistance in the event of prosecution. Khuzami is also calling for changes in the law to protect whistleblowers and even to reward them financially.
 
http://www.whistleblowersblog.org/tags/khuzami/
 
 
The Securities and Exchange Commission wants to write rules for its bounty program so whistleblowers do not bypass their employers' internal compliance procedures in a rush for cash, SEC enforcement director Robert Khuzami said Monday. Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act expanded the areas for which the SEC can pay bounties for providing original information that results in significant financial recoveries by the agency. Speaking at a seminar at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, Khuzami pointed to his division's top post-meltdown priority as a deep dive into the investment adviser world. Khuzami said number two on his list is an increased focus on large-scale insider trading and market manipulation as better technology makes these types of frauds easier to detect. With improved technology and enhanced powers under the Dodd Frank Act, the SEC will be able to see derivatives and debt transactions as clearly as it can look at equity…
 
http://www.complinet.com/global/news/news/article.html?ref=137559
 
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carolab
Walking an 87-year-old in the sand isn't easy
01:31 PM on 01/18/2011
Your second and third links are a lot of promises backed up by no action.

The investigation is real and Khuzami owes an explanation at the very least for why he had his "secret meeting" with that attorney.  It's not merely a matter of not telling the staff in advance about it.  And we have no explanation of why Citi got off so lightly, as well, especially seeing as how the investors are being allowed to proceed with their suit.

If you don't like Bloomberg, too bad.  They are among the few financial reporting sources that actually care about getting to and sharing the facts with the public.  And the statement I made is not verbatim from Bloomberg but rather my interpretation.

Reuters has this:

WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters Legal) - The internal watchdog at the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether the SEC enforcement director's friendship with a Citigroup defense attorney led him to drop fraud charges against two of the company's executives last year.

The letter alleges that SEC Enforcement Director Rob Khuzami held secret conversations with Citigroup's attorney without involving other staff and ultimately helped protect the company from private litigation.

http://westlawnews.thomson.com/National_Litigation/News/2011/01_-_January/Watchdog_probes_SEC_handling_of_Citi_settlement/

You can spin that if you want, but it means that he is under investigation for colluding with  Citi's defense attorney to drop the civil fraud charges, which bottom line means he helped protect Citi and two of its chief financial officers against penalties commensurate with the damage they did to their investors, which at least by my book means he helped Citi to defraud them. 

You can spin things all you want, Chas, but you won't be convincing me that Khuzami is clean in this matter unless and until there is a satisfactory explanation about all of this.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:18 AM on 01/17/2011
We need to get as many people as possible to take lawsuits out against all these criminals.
http://bizcovering.com/investing/dollar-tanking-rats-abandon-sinking-ship/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipTaylor
Legalized Bribery is an Oxymoron - must END
06:31 AM on 01/17/2011
YES - The lawyers will also love that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipTaylor
Legalized Bribery is an Oxymoron - must END
05:31 AM on 01/17/2011
JUDGE GIVES OK TO GO AFTER RUBIN, PRINCE, and CRITTENDEN IN LAW SUIT
 
US Judge rules Citigroup shareholders can pursue claims bank sales persons knowingly misled them about CDOs’ values and risks between February 2007 and April 2008 understating exposure to the deteriorating sub-prime mortgage market.
 
The judge ruled shareholders could not pursue claims against executives Pandit, Gerspach, and Krawcheck, but can pursue claims against former executives Rubin, Prince, and Crittenden.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A84WO20101109
 
[Link from CarolAB]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
12:09 PM on 01/18/2011
You're calling them "bank sales persons?"  Are you serious?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carolab
Walking an 87-year-old in the sand isn't easy
01:38 PM on 01/18/2011
That's what they are, "investment bankers" and "stockbrokers".  They sell securities for the bank.  Banks love to hand out big important titles.  Stockbrokers are agents that charge a fee or commission for executing buy and sell orders submitted by an investor. Investment bankers are the people who do the grunt work for IPOs and bond issues.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:28 PM on 01/16/2011
I am not sure being transported back to the stone age would be all that disagreeable................
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JacksonAndy78
Usury Interest FEEDS BANKSTERS
04:29 AM on 01/17/2011
SOME SAY: Banksters will crash the economy and cause a global panic if the PEOPLE ever got strong enough to Challenge them, but we should LET THEM DO THAT as it will FINALLY be their END - and likely WORTH every bit of the RISK and SHORT TERM PAIN!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
12:11 PM on 01/18/2011
You really think if the banking system were to collapse the pain for the rest of us would be "short term?" 
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
toocoolfoschool1234
Stab your television. Get a guitar.
07:44 PM on 01/18/2011
im with you
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hrpmap
Retired man still active..
03:06 PM on 01/16/2011
A relationship, any relationship whether public or private, family or government that is based on a lie is doomed to fail. It may last for a time, but, eventually it will implode. Case in point, money, currency that is based on manipulatable paper certificates or cyber entries controlled by men with a vested interest by way of their own profit interests. Money is a concept, a fiction; it is not something that is real it is a system that is put in place to facilitate commerce and under the current system given value by weight of law. It has no value if its own, therefore it merely passes the debt on, nothing of value has been exchanged, just a promise to pay. The bankers call it an elastic currency which means they can manipulate it, and they have and do at every turn. By their ability to manipulate the currency they are in effect manipulating us, those who by law must live under their system by way of laws written by bankster owned politicians.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hrpmap
Retired man still active..
03:16 PM on 01/16/2011
The regulators that have failed are the congress that was given the duties of oversight in the constitution. Instead the passed the Owens Glass Bill (the Federal Reserve act) and abandoned that constitutional responsibility and gave the fed secrecy with no accountability. It isn’t just Americans; every country in the world has their own central bank that must be sanctioned by the World Bank to exist. Therefore part of the lie is that it’s only the Federal Reserve that is the problem, it is the head of the system that sanctions the Federal Reserve just as they do in every country that is the problem. The lie was pointed out by Thomas Edison and Henry Ford many years ago that the world bankster’s system was an unnecessary fraud. The bankster’s lie is still being propagated today and people fall for it. We not only don’t need the current bankster’s system we would be prosperous without it. The relationship of the bankster’s and government today is the ultimate lie, that men can be trusted to conduct themselves with honor when the their own gain is the definer. For a much better way research the method proposed by Henry Ford and Thomas Edison on Muscle Shoals Dam financing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
12:26 PM on 01/18/2011
What Henry Ford and Thomas Edison (inventors, not economists) suggested was that government simply print money instead of bonds (on the mistaken belief that this would save the government the interest that it pays on bonds).  This is precisely what post WW I Germany did, and it's money was worthless.  Laborers carried money home with them in wagons and used it to start fires in their wood stoves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
12:18 PM on 01/18/2011
Money is "real" enough, it just isn't what people think it is.  Money is a promise, that's all, a medium of exchange with no intrinsic value, but without money the entire economy would implode.  Money, like any other form of debt, is a promise that is accepted by governments, businesses and individuals, and a means of exchanging goods, services, and paying our financial obligations.  Without money there would be no gasoline for your car, no groceries at the supermarket.  And no more Internet on which to post your apocalyptic prophesies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carolab
Walking an 87-year-old in the sand isn't easy
01:41 PM on 01/18/2011
Money as we know it is a substitution for barter PLUS INTEREST PAID TO BANKERS.   We need an instrument of exchange SANS INTEREST or INTEREST PAID TO THE STATE.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Sta
02:47 PM on 01/15/2011
What does your 'gut" say about the rest of the citizens economy? I guess not worth a bailout.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
12:29 PM on 01/18/2011
Actually, there have been both institutional and individual "bailouts" which, in both cases, are loans that must be repaid.  The banks that are unable to repay their TARP loans, and the homeowners who are unable to pay their modified mortgages, will go bankrupt.  Those who can repay will not go bankrupt as a result of the current crisis.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Sta
12:46 PM on 01/18/2011
Except that Govt granted banks immunity from their criminal behavior, changed the accounting methods, so banks could count the non-existent revenue stream from dead assets, and spent 600 billion on QE2, which has been an income stream for big banks. Homeowners get nothing, including the protections afforded by the Constitution.
01:48 PM on 01/15/2011
Aren't we beyond sick of hearing all the injustices? It's beyong whining; it's "doing something about it " time; We just go get them!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
12:30 PM on 01/18/2011
Who is "we," and how do "we just go get them?"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carolab
Walking an 87-year-old in the sand isn't easy
01:53 PM on 01/18/2011
You're the one with all the answers, why don't you tell us?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
mcmutter
A Groover has to expect a few setbacks .....
12:43 PM on 01/15/2011
the Saudis own a large percentage of Citi ......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kurt Mundt
Interesting world we live in, eh?
02:22 AM on 01/15/2011
It's good to have friends who can bail you out and make a profit too - big bonuses for everyone!