home

Citi's Rosy View

Here is the NYTimes with Citi CEO Vikram Pandit's memo to Citi employees:

From: Vikram Pandit
Subject: Capital Strength and Earnings Power
Sent: Mon Mar 09 21:12:44 2009

Dear Citi Colleagues,

After a broad sell off in the markets last week, I thought I would give you a quick update on our position.

Despite the steps we’ve taken to strengthen our capital base, I am, like you, disappointed with our current stock price and the broad-based misperceptions about our company and its financial position. I don’t believe it reflects the strengths of Citi; our newly strengthened capital base, our unique global franchise and most importantly, the quality of our people. These are unprecedented times in the markets, but over time, the markets will recognize the many strengths of Citi.

I believe there are two key issues to focus on — capital strength and earnings power.

First, on capital strength, as you know, the preferred exchange we announced nearly two weeks ago is expected to make Citi the strongest capitalized large U.S. bank as measured by tangible common equity (TCE) and Tier 1 ratios. While our Tier 1 ratio will remain at 11.9% as of December 31, 2008, assuming 100% participation in the exchange, our TCE could increase to as much as $81 billion. Despite this addition of tangible common equity, some people continue to question our capital strength because of our net deferred tax asset (DTA) and the quality of our assets.

* DTA: Even if near-term conditions deteriorate significantly, we expect to be able to realize the majority of our DTAs.

* Asset quality: The Fed will conduct stress tests for all large banks in coming weeks. We’ve done our own stress testing using assumptions that are more pessimistic than the Fed has outlined and we are confident about our capital strength.

* In addition, the Smith Barney joint venture and the conversion of mandatory convertibles is expected to add another $14 billion to our tangible common equity over time.

In addition to our strong capital position, I am most encouraged with the strength of our business so far in 2009. In fact, we are profitable through the first two months of 2009 and are having our best quarter-to-date performance since the third quarter of 2007. In January and February alone, our revenues excluding externally disclosed marks were $19 billion. Our client businesses are strong: our deposits are relatively stable, our client-driven Securities and Banking businesses have been performing well, including our recent #1 rank in M&A, and we continue to provide credit to consumer and corporate customers. You have all done a very impressive job driving revenues and reducing our cost structure, and it is gratifying to see the results first hand.

I also appreciate how distracting the confusion in the markets and the media can be. In case you missed it, you should read the article in Friday’s Wall Street Journal Deal Journal entitled “Citi Woes Don’t Distract Its Investment Bankers” (http://www.citigroup.net/citigrouptoday/2009/inthepress/itp090309a.shtml). It was great to see you get the recognition you deserve and how you have remained focused on your clients and customers.

Lastly, I spent time last week talking to groups of colleagues and clients in Europe. It was good to hear from them. Not only did I learn a lot about what was on their minds, I was able to give them the full story of Citi and where we are today, including our full commitment to our global network and presence in over 100 countries, which is our key competitive differentiator. I would encourage each of you to continually engage with your colleagues and clients to ensure open lines of communication. To help in this effort, I have attached some important information points as an aid in your discussions. Please send me any feedback you may receive or any questions you are not able to answer.

Thank you again for your dedication. These are the times that will define us all.

Best regards,

Vikram

Here are the "talking points" (PDF). I must say that if I was Mr. Pandit's personal attorney, I would not have recommended sending out this memo, as it could be considered a disclosure or representation for securities law purposes. If I worked for Citi, I would be thrilled to receive this memo.

A few points - Citi's capital position is unchanged by what is described in this memo. There certainly should be a reduction in the need for preferred dividends as a result of the accounting and share conversions described above and that should certainly help Citi.

Citi says it has done its own stress testing that is tougher than those the government will do and that it is going to pass the government stress test. Let's hope this is true.

Citi also says that it has had its 2 best months since 2007, earning over 8 billion dollars in January and February. Let's hope THAT is meaningful (I am not a banker so I do not know if there is something equivalent to a EBITDA for banks) and true (earnings reports where "special items" are included are suspect to me, especially now).

Why do this if you are Citi? To create confidence in your company of course. What is the downside for Citi? If this does not work out, it is going to be hard to argue for more cash from the government. Pandit seems to realize that the next step is "temporary takeover" anyway. Why not roll the dice (see my post on Stiglitz below.)

In any event, let's hope this is really good news and that we have turned the corner of the financial crisis. Nothing would make us happier than seeing all of us doomsayers on the financial crisis be wrong.

Speaking for me only

< Will Obama Own The Economy? | Tueday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What do you suppose he means by (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:29:36 AM EST
    our newly strengthened capital base

    ??

    Is that just another way of describing the government cash injections?

    I don't find this letter credible at all.

    That's the only thing it could be (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:03:49 AM EST
    A UCF finance professor (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:46:06 PM EST
    and former regulator quoted in the Orlando Sentinel this morning said essentially that. He said that to a bank all income is income, and it was a mistake to expect them to suddenly turn into good stewards of taxpayer dollars.

    We are soooo screwed.

    Parent

    This is the difference between cash flow solvency (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:30:28 AM EST
    and balance sheet insolvency.

    Thanks to the Fed's zero-interest rate policy, the banks' net interest margins are at historical highs.

    Banks will have quite a bit of net income on their performing assets.  The question becomes can they earn enough to cover the write downs on their non-performing assets.

    This is not a question that can be answered today, as the banks' liabilities have average maturities of 5 years or so.  So far, no bank has failed to meet its debt obligations AS THEY HAVE COME DUE.

    My biggest question becomes can the banks expand lending while they are trying to earn their way out of new writedowns.  I don't know; that's why I wish the gov't acted faster in approving new banks.  I understand there are quite a few applications for bank startups that are piling up.

    I Hope the government takes as ... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by santarita on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:28:14 AM EST
    long as it needs on applications for new start up banks.  I suspect any time delay on applications is due to the fact that the regulators are busy working on winding down bad banks.

    Parent
    Why start a new bank (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:33:07 AM EST
    when you can bid on the good parts of Citi and BofA in a few months?

    Parent
    The quality of their assets is poor though (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:37:28 AM EST
    A new bank can start off making much better loans, be much stronger from day #1.  The newer banks would also be able to keep their interest rates lower, they aren't earning their way out of hell.  That would help all of us little people deal with the inflation that we will deal with while also dealing with this unemployment spiral at the same time.  The competition though would make things tougher on the existing banks and the not so good loans sitting on their books.

    Parent
    Apparently, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:40:03 AM EST
    Banks are now worried about their credit card businesses.

    How about this?  I would pay more on my credit cards and pay them down if you wouldn't have jacked all my interest rates up above 20%??? (Especially as I ALWAYS pay my bills on time and usually try to pay a little more than the minimum each month). But now, that's impossible.

    Jerks.


    JB, they are not worried (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by vml68 on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:44:32 AM EST
    about customers like you. You are their favorite kind, a veritable goldmine.

    Parent
    They need you to have to keep (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:48:20 AM EST
    paying that high interest for as long as you possibly can even if it is breaking you.  Then they tally all of those charges up and write a nice letter about showing a profit that quarter before other stuff is counted.

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:51:43 AM EST
    But it just pi$$es me off because when I call to see if they can lower my interest rates, I get the attitude like I'm some slacker.  I want to pay my bills - I made them, and I owe them - but I need a little help here.  I guess they are gambling that I won't say "screw my credit rating" and just not pay them sometime.

    Have I said lately that I hate these people???  :()

    Parent

    Your calling the wrong outfit jb.... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:01:46 AM EST
    you, much like myself, are stuck in the old-school "make your bed and sleep in it" mindframe, trying to sort yourself out.

    Who you should be calling is Uncle Sam and asking him to pay your cc's for ya...the new American way.  Like your bank does:)

    Parent

    Or ask Uncle Sam to (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:11:56 AM EST
    require banks lower cc interest rates as a condition of receiving federal bailout funds.

    Here is my credit card saga:  credit card company used to say:  mail payment to Nevada.  Then sd.:  mail payment to Illinois (suburb of Chicago).  Suddenly payment was arriving late.  I complained.  Credit card company sd.:  pay by phone.  Eventually I did.  Then credit card company sd., it will cost you $14 to pay be phone, pay via Internet.  So I did.  Last month: I pay by Internet, but automatic checking account debit of $14.50 because must pay by 4:00 p.m. EST.  What next?  

    Parent

    Your bank website (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:15:11 AM EST
    probably has a free online payment system. When I use it, everything always arrives on time. Wachovia's is very good.

    Parent
    They do. But I procrastinate. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:21:07 AM EST
    Now you're just talking crazy oculus (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:16:06 AM EST
    It's a conspiracy, I tell you. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:21:41 AM EST
    It totally is because they are going to use (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:26:29 AM EST
    your money to "recapitalize" insolvent banks while the banks charge every fee you can ever imagine to earn their way out of the mess they made.  You and I are going to get it coming and going!

    Parent
    The gov't should WANT to help us with this.... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    afterall, every dollar we spend in late fees, higher interest and processing fees is a dollar no longer available to stimulate the economy.

    It isn't real difficult to see what is going on here. The banks are grabbing our money from every direction that exists.

    I'm moving my money to a small, local bank and paying off my credit cards asap. Thinking I'll do credit union and a consolidation loan to really chap their b*tts.


    Parent

    I called my credit union yesterday (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:16:01 AM EST
    to ask about getting a lower interest rate on my mortgage.  They sd.:  call back at the end of March.  We're working on it.  

    Parent
    You forgot the part where they (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    schedule the due dates for weekends and holidays, and do not consider a payment made on the first business day after that date to be a timely payment.  Or they change the dates.  Or reduce the time between payments.

    I paid off the few cards we had about 5 years ago, and have no regrets.  I like knowing that what I buy is actually all mine, and doesn't end up costing me more than what I "paid" for it, plus, it serves as a check on whether I really need to spend this money.

    No question that the credit card business is really a racket, and it burns me that the government took affirmative action that enabled it.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:22:53 AM EST
    Blame my parents, (da#n them!) for raising me to be responsible.  Matter of fact, I'll call my dad right now and tell him he was a terrible parent for instilling me that I should do things as (GASP) pay my bills.

    Is there an application that I can file to get my own personal government bailout?  My law school loans alone are enough to drive me crazy!

    Parent

    If you find that app let me know.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:09:49 AM EST
    my 5-star play in the Gotham Stakes, Haynesfield, sh*t the bed and ran out of the money....I shoulda informed the OTB attendant of the new American way, all losing bets are now paid like winners.

    Parent
    B of A jacked up my rate (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:42:55 AM EST
    last fall after I was less than a week late with a payment. I promptly went to great lengths and paid my balance in full on two cards they had ended up owning through previous bank mergers. I will never use those cards again.

    Next to my MSNBC boycott, that action has made me happier than anything else I have done in years.

    Parent

    Further evidence (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:47:29 AM EST
    that carrying a balance on a credit card is just asking for trouble. Though I understand why people do.

    Parent
    It really is (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:50:15 AM EST
    and I should know better from my sorry episodes in the past.

    Young people out there, just don't do it, no matter how tempting it seems. If any good comes of this crisis, it will be that young people learn from the mistakes of people like me.

    Parent

    I'm done with Kohl's (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:52:47 AM EST
    I haven't even been in the store since Christmas I'm so steamed.  I made my January payment late, forgot about it because I had put some Christmas stuff on the Kohl's card but other than that haven't really used it.  So I make a late payment and if you are talking minimum payments it was probably the sum of 5 months of minimum payments.....it was half the balance on the card.  Because my payment was late though and I was also paying a late fee as well wouldn't you have thought that the payment I did make was also a February payment?  Nope, I got my next statement and there was a late fee for February. I phoned and was told that even though the payment I did make covered both months minimum payment and the late fee and then some that it was only considered a payment for the month of January and I was still considered delingquent in making a payment for the month of February.  I freaked out.  I was sooooooo mad.  I paid off the remaining sum of the balance on the very last day I could after I insisted my account be closed.  Kohl's rang my phone off the hook wanting a payment earlier.....that was freaky too....but I just hung up on them, told them I didn't need to make any payment until the very end of February and I didn't.  I'm done though with them.

    Parent
    Good to know (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:43:16 PM EST
    I am avoiding both banks and merchants that take out their bad times on their customers.

    I still use my Wells Fargo VISA, and have a small balance. They have not seen fit to gouge me yet for the privilege of paying them interest and keeping them afloat. If they do, that card will go into retirement to except to buy airline tickets and that kind of stuff.

    Parent

    Seems like double-dipping (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:35:58 PM EST
    when they can charge both a late fee and increase the interest rate for one minor infraction.

    Shall we all write to Biden about this?

    Parent

    I'm amazed... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:47:20 AM EST
    These are the times that will define us all

    That may be true...your outfit has been defined all right, as a big fat dole glutton.  

    But such good news: Citi won't (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:56:24 AM EST
    be needing anymore of our tax dollars.  

    Parent
    Oh, they'll go ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:54:22 AM EST
    all Oliver Twist on us again ... in a heartbeat.

    Parent
    You're right. In fact, I'm going to (none / 0) (#50)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:28:38 PM EST
    write a nice letter to my Senators and congressman. I'll attach a copy of the nice memo and ask my reps to please let me know what Citi's repayment plan is since they are now capable of clearing that debt to the American taxpayers.

    Parent
    Whatever and however much truth (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:39:58 AM EST
    there is in that letter, we all know that it doesn't tell the full story, because if it did, it would never have been written, and handled in such a way as to make sure it hit all the major media outlets.

    If this were an episode of House, it would be about 20 minutes in, there would have been at least two resuscitations, and ongoing debate about what is REALLY wrong with this patient ("it's this!  It's that!"  "We can fix him!"  "there's nothing we can do!".  "you're an idiot!"  "I need a pill!").

    Would that we knew this would end as all House episodes do, with the patient restored to health and all mysteries solved and questions answered.


    As a securities lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:49:34 AM EST
    the reason why Citi probably doesn't have to worry about a securities fraud claim is that it's hard for anyone to claim any damages when your stock is trading at a buck!

    In all seriousness, yeah, there is an issue here, but I'm confident Citi's lawyers went over this statement with a fine-toothed comb.  There are people whose sole job is to ensure that any public statements by the company are closely vetted for accuracy, and this statement is close enough to public that I'm sure they gave it the same treatment.

    Facts and numbers are actionable, what he said about the internal stress tests is probably actionable, but I can't say for a fact that any of those statements are false.  General expressions of optimism, on the other hand, aren't actionable even if they turn out to be complete BS.

    The absence of said (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:59:44 AM EST
    general expressions of optimism in this situation could even be considered a breach of fiduciary responsibility. :-)

    Looks to me like Pandit's played this one very well.


    Parent

    Specific statements on the stress test (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:22:03 PM EST
    strike me as particularly risky to be frank.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:56:43 PM EST
    The ultimate doomsday scenario is where Citi goes bankrupt, the shareholders sue for securities fraud based upon these false statements, and it turns out Pandit's D&O policy that covers the lawsuit was underwritten by AIG...

    Parent
    Good information... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by santarita on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:02:32 PM EST
    And given the level of USG involvement, I suspect that the Treasury Department reviewed the letter as well.  If it didn't then I want my taxpayer money back.

    The bigger question for me is why such a letter at this particular time?   Just because Citi could report two good months before it issues its next bleak quarterly statement?  Or as others have suggested, because Citi is advertising the strength of some of its operating units in order to enhance their sales price.

    Parent

    Perhaps there's a lab rat here? (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by wurman on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    In my opinion, based on some old-time LBJ publicity & public relations gambits, CitiBank is offering a direct response to senators McCain & Graham.

    Their joint comments about letting "insolvent" (by their unknowledgeable definitions) banks be viewed as dead, dissecting them via Chap. 7, & burying the remains was newsworthy yesterday & Sunday.  It would've seemed that the Obama admin. might respond to this new set of Bobbsey Twins, who appear to be the senate-based second set pinch-blathering for representatives Boehner & Cantor--who may have worn out their welcome just about everywhere except FixtSnooz.

    Pandit's letter seems to be reasonably solid evidence that Citi is not a "zombie" bank.  It serves little purpose to question his veracity or guess whether his comments are actionable if false.  Sheeeeeesh.  That appears to be shades of wingnuttia.

    A handful of the financial gurus who I read or see on occasions consider the letter factual, plausible, & useful.

    It's also a direct contrary to McCain & Graham, but not from the White House.  So . . . if that experimental lab rat survives the scrutiny, then we may see more epistolary defenses of the Bu$h & Obama joint "bailout" operation(s) from recipients, participants, & rejuvenants.

    Sheesh (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    "Pandit's letter seems to be reasonably solid evidence that Citi is not a "zombie" bank.  It serves little purpose to question his veracity or guess whether his comments are actionable if false.  Sheeeeeesh.  That appears to be shades of wingnuttia."

    Migawd, are you nuts? Let me be as blunt as I can be - Citi's stock went up when this memo was leaked, as was clearly intended.

    If it later goes down, the chances of someone suing seem strong to me.

    If that possibility strikes you as "wingnuttia," may I suggest that perhaps you do not have the foggiest clue what you are talking about.

    Parent

    Sheesh. (none / 0) (#70)
    by wurman on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 02:09:10 PM EST
    Don't know how to respond Big Tent.  You have no reason(s) to question Pandit's veracity.  As some other commenter wrote, it's very likely that Citi put that letter through a review by their legal staff.  You know that.

    You're off-base on this.  Unless you have some form of reporting, commentary, or knowledge that Citi is making false statements your speculations serve no purpose.  All of the banks are being watched by regulators & auditors & financial analysts.

    Many of the stock market gurus & the ratings companies have verified & supported Pandit's claims in the letter.  They've cautioned readers & their clients about other Citi problems, but the margin & profit numbers are "known" to be accurate by people who watch that stuff daily--some even hourly!!!

    If you read more widely & in some other areas of financial expertise, you might be generally aware that, contrary to the opinions of McCain & Graham, the bank rescue is working.

    Parent

    Sheesh (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    What freaking world do you live in?

    One where everyone does the right thing?

    Really?

    Heck, I do not know why anyone questioned why bush could not assert absolute authority. What could go wrong there?

    Parent

    In my world it's quaint to verify facts. (none / 0) (#72)
    by wurman on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    Pandit's claims in the letter can be checked & verified--as per Bloomberg, MarketWatch, BizJournal & some arcana.

    You are not responding to my comments.

    You're name-calling.

    I'll drop it & go away now.  I followed you here from elsewhere, a long time ago (different name), & dropped off for a long time (forgot my login) & came back during the primaries.

    You used to make sense.  You had the skills to cite your sources, reference links, support your opinions with verifiable facts, etc.  Now you pontificate. You don't even defend your opinions; you bluster.

    You're writing ex cathedra in this exchange & you've done that in 2 previous threads with me during the past few months.  You have no counter arguments to Pandit's claims so you question his veracity.  That's just a cheapshot, mister & you do that way too much of late.

    Vaya con dios, amigo.

    Parent

    Denial is a (none / 0) (#16)
    by SOS on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:17:32 AM EST
    strange dis-ease. But then again how bad can things be when your a Highly Rewarded Exec, set for life working or not, golden parachute, and now whats being referred to as golden coffin?

    I guess trying to run the confidence game is the only tool left in the toolbox at that point.

    I love the justification for that (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:22:30 AM EST
    trip to Europe.  

    Parent
    There's a point (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    Oculus, where cynicism just becomes corroding, destructive and ultimately deluding.

    You suggest the head of a huge company in a precarious position with worldwide reach uses talking to major clients and business partners face to face in Europe as just an excuse for a vacation.

    Excuse me, I need to go read something more thoughtful, like Rush Limbaugh.

    Parent

    Ouch. (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    I think oculus has more historical substance (none / 0) (#51)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:35:10 PM EST
    to justify the cynicism than you do to just trust them to do the right thing.

    It's easier to keep conversations "off the record" when they are done in person.

    Anything you have to support your trust level would be listened to with great interest. I'd love to be able to change my cynical attitude toward the big banks, but they haven't really given me anything to build trust from.


    Parent

    "Just trust them to do the right thing"? (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:25:11 PM EST
    Surely you jest.

    Parent
    i'll take cash flow solvency (none / 0) (#21)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:23:19 AM EST
    This is the difference between cash flow solvency and balance sheet insolvency.

    for $500 alex!

    cash flow pays the bills, fixed assets don't. in fact, as an auditor, one of the very critical elements, in determining whether an entity is an "ongoing concern", is whether or not they have the cash flow to pay their bills, on a timely basis.

    two different issues:

    The question becomes can they earn enough to cover the write downs on their non-performing assets.

    non-performing and uncollectable are not, by definition, mutually inclusive. it's only after a note is deemed uncollectable, in whole or part, that it's written down or off, and adversely impacts current income, retained earnings and equity.

    granted, non-performing is usually the first step to uncollectable, but not always. bear in mind, banks must identify loans as non-performing based on specific criteria, which don't necessarily take into account unusual circumstances.

    all that said, you raise a valid question. one which only time will tell the answer to.

    actually, it pretty much (none / 0) (#47)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:34:14 PM EST
    Cash Flow is not always king

    always is. let me explain:

    without positive cash flow, your bills don't get paid on time. hopefully, that positive cash flow is the result of revenues, and collections on loans/accounts receivable. while cash flow from the issuance of additional shares of stock helps pay bills, or reduce loans payable, it's not the same as cash flow from revenue.

    as well, issuing additional shares of stock dilutes the value of all shares issued and outstanding. a ceo would prefer cash flow to come from revenues, not additional capital infusions, as this can definitely signal weakness to the market.

    oddly enough, you make the argument for the primacy of cash flow quite well in your post.

    Parent

    At least, in this environment, where Citi cannot (none / 0) (#53)
    by steviez314 on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 02:56:25 PM EST
    raise capital (except from the government), its positive cash flow will help to rebuild its capital base.

    Unlike GM, which can't raise capital and has negative cash flow. Good luck there!

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 03:23:52 PM EST
    "There are many ways around negative cash flow."

    Indeed there are - like having the government hand you a a bundle of cash.

    But if that option is closed, then there may not be as many ways around it.

    Parent

    Not funny at all (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 09:27:22 PM EST
    My point exactly. So please stop with the jokes.

    Parent