> Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the stock
> could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it is
> hovering around support.

On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:35:20 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:

> The only question is to how big the loss will be. I follow this stock more
> closely than anyone on this board and I am telling you to GET OUT NOW!  All
> the pumpers, en.ron, jeffy, turbo, slider, etc. have long since moved on. I
> recommend shorting it.

On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the stock
> could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it is
> hovering around support.

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 7:35:33 AM UTC-5, Rancher9 wrote:

> The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
> on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on fundamentals.
>  There are very few retail investors left in the market in general. If new
> money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few thousand
> times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

> Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

>    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
>    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are corrupt
>    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
>    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
>    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
>    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other currencies. Since
>    most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking a headwind.

> On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

>> Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the stock
>> could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it is
>> hovering around support.

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:54:13 PM UTC-4, Rancher9 wrote:

>  The Numbers to beat "The current estimates: 0.90 EPS and $18.93-B in
> revenue."

> http://www.livetradingnews.com/bank-earnings-preview-jpm-wfc-bac-c-gs...

> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 7:35:33 AM UTC-5, Rancher9 wrote:

>> The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
>> on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on fundamentals.
>>  There are very few retail investors left in the market in general. If new
>> money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few thousand
>> times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

>> Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

>>    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
>>    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are corrupt
>>    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
>>    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
>>    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
>>    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other currencies.
>>    Since most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking a
>>    headwind.

>> On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

>>> Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the stock
>>> could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it is
>>> hovering around support.

> The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
> on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on fundamentals.
>  There are very few retail investors left in the market in general. If new
> money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few thousand
> times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

> Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

>    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
>    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are corrupt
>    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
>    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
>    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
>    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other currencies. Since
>    most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking a headwind.

> On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the stock
> > could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it is
> > hovering around support.

> It has always been my understanding that major contributors to a
> stock's price are Earnings and Interest Rates. Since I'm not an expert
> as Dep has claimed I will yield to your thesis mostly because it does
> sound pretty damned convincing.

> Perhaps if less "interesting times" where in place the Earnings clues
> in the current data are:

> .78 to 1.03 earnings per share.

> 1) Reporting Jun/11 earning surprise was +14%, Oct/11:+52%, Dec/11:
> (-24%) and Mar/12: +10% (in other words 3out of 4 quarters beat
> consensus).
> 2) Net income Mar/12 was almost 3X previous Quarter.
> 3) Profit margins: 2010:(-25%), 2011:(-2%) and so far 2012:+5%
> 4) Citi sold 10% Akbank, and 14% JV MSSB (the later as scheduled with
> MS)
> 5) $14.00 Free Cash Flow per Share.
> 6) Analyst views are skewed negatively due to Citigroups buyback/
> divide scuffle. (just guessing here)

> Number 2 and 3 of (your reasons) are in my opinion the most
> indisputable and troubling.

> Looking forward to less "interesting times" and the mythical belief
> that if Citigroup's pps remains low at the time of announcing the "Big
> buyback", citigroup warrants will come into the money.

> On Jul 11, 8:35 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
> > on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on fundamentals.
> >  There are very few retail investors left in the market in general. If new
> > money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few thousand
> > times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

> > Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

> >    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
> >    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are corrupt
> >    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
> >    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
> >    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
> >    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other currencies. Since
> >    most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking a headwind.

> > On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the stock
> > > could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it is
> > > hovering around support.

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:49:35 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> Returning money back to investors, Big Buyback 2011, 2012,
> 2013 ....... The day they fire Pandit, see the stock jump more than
> the best earnings

> On Jul 11, 1:01 pm, "??" <kwikkleencarw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It has always been my understanding that major contributors to a
> > stock's price are Earnings and Interest Rates. Since I'm not an expert
> > as Dep has claimed I will yield to your thesis mostly because it does
> > sound pretty damned convincing.

> > Perhaps if less "interesting times" where in place the Earnings clues
> > in the current data are:

> > .78 to 1.03 earnings per share.

> > 1) Reporting Jun/11 earning surprise was +14%, Oct/11:+52%, Dec/11:
> > (-24%) and Mar/12: +10% (in other words 3out of 4 quarters beat
> > consensus).
> > 2) Net income Mar/12 was almost 3X previous Quarter.
> > 3) Profit margins: 2010:(-25%), 2011:(-2%) and so far 2012:+5%
> > 4) Citi sold 10% Akbank, and 14% JV MSSB (the later as scheduled with
> > MS)
> > 5) $14.00 Free Cash Flow per Share.
> > 6) Analyst views are skewed negatively due to Citigroups buyback/
> > divide scuffle. (just guessing here)

> > Number 2 and 3 of (your reasons) are in my opinion the most
> > indisputable and troubling.

> > Looking forward to less "interesting times" and the mythical belief
> > that if Citigroup's pps remains low at the time of announcing the "Big
> > buyback", citigroup warrants will come into the money.

> > On Jul 11, 8:35 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > > The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
> > > on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on
> fundamentals.
> > >  There are very few retail investors left in the market in general. If
> new
> > > money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few
> thousand
> > > times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

> > > Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

> > >    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
> > >    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are
> corrupt
> > >    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
> > >    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
> > >    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
> > >    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other currencies.
> Since
> > >    most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking a
> headwind.

> > > On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the stock
> > > > could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it is
> > > > hovering around support.

> A quick history:

>    1. Mid 2000 Greenspan coined the word "Excessive Exuberance"
>    2. 2008 the Housing bubble stretched to the limit.
>    3. 2009 for Citigroup, along with the entire banking system,
>    equity disappeared requireing the government to jump in with cash.
>    4. Pandit and the Board repaid the government with shares of stock in
>    order to do that they had to come to us, the holders of share, and request
>    that more shares be printed. We gave the go ahead.
>    5. The Government sold the common shares into the open market. They
>    still retain some preferred shares but for the most part they are out of
>    the company.
>    6. The problem at this point is too many shares at too low a price.
>    Therefore the number of shares needed to be downsized.
>    7. With the consent of the share holders a 1 for 10 reverse
>    split occurred.
>    8. The perfect storm of events, I listed earlier in this thread, has
>    depressed the PPS well below book value for a long time.

> Going forward, stock buyback along with bigger dividend should return value
> to the long suffering share holders. However, there are hurdles to overcome
> not the least of which are government meddling and the world recession.

> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:49:35 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > Returning money back to investors, Big Buyback 2011, 2012,
> > 2013 ....... The day they fire Pandit, see the stock jump more than
> > the best earnings

> > On Jul 11, 1:01 pm, "??" <kwikkleencarw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It has always been my understanding that major contributors to a
> > > stock's price are Earnings and Interest Rates. Since I'm not an expert
> > > as Dep has claimed I will yield to your thesis mostly because it does
> > > sound pretty damned convincing.

> > > Perhaps if less "interesting times" where in place the Earnings clues
> > > in the current data are:

> > > .78 to 1.03 earnings per share.

> > > 1) Reporting Jun/11 earning surprise was +14%, Oct/11:+52%, Dec/11:
> > > (-24%) and Mar/12: +10% (in other words 3out of 4 quarters beat
> > > consensus).
> > > 2) Net income Mar/12 was almost 3X previous Quarter.
> > > 3) Profit margins: 2010:(-25%), 2011:(-2%) and so far 2012:+5%
> > > 4) Citi sold 10% Akbank, and 14% JV MSSB (the later as scheduled with
> > > MS)
> > > 5) $14.00 Free Cash Flow per Share.
> > > 6) Analyst views are skewed negatively due to Citigroups buyback/
> > > divide scuffle. (just guessing here)

> > > Number 2 and 3 of (your reasons) are in my opinion the most
> > > indisputable and troubling.

> > > Looking forward to less "interesting times" and the mythical belief
> > > that if Citigroup's pps remains low at the time of announcing the "Big
> > > buyback", citigroup warrants will come into the money.

> > > On Jul 11, 8:35 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > > > The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
> > > > on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on
> > fundamentals.
> > > >  There are very few retail investors left in the market in general. If
> > new
> > > > money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few
> > thousand
> > > > times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

> > > > Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

> > > >    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
> > > >    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are
> > corrupt
> > > >    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
> > > >    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
> > > >    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
> > > >    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other currencies.
> > Since
> > > >    most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking a
> > headwind.

> > > > On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the stock
> > > > > could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it is
> > > > > hovering around support.

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> Too many shares at too low a price ! lol !. It was still double the
> PPS of what it is now. The majority common shareholder voted against
> the split in 2011, but the govt voted for it and the split happened
> because govt held about 25% of the votes. It is easy for someone like
> you to be blinded or ignore the facts when you came into  C after the
> split, ask any share holder what he thinks of the split who owned th
> shares before the split. To lose 20-30% % or more of the stock value
> just because of the split is not palatable for anyone except perhaps
> for someone like you who  could get shares in the $20's because of
> it.But for the split, C would have been trading at least in the $4-$5
> range as it usually did. The management, esp Pandit does needs to be
> fired

> On Jul 12, 5:24 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:
> > A quick history:

> >    1. Mid 2000 Greenspan coined the word "Excessive Exuberance"
> >    2. 2008 the Housing bubble stretched to the limit.
> >    3. 2009 for Citigroup, along with the entire banking system,
> >    equity disappeared requireing the government to jump in with cash.
> >    4. Pandit and the Board repaid the government with shares of stock in
> >    order to do that they had to come to us, the holders of share, and
> request
> >    that more shares be printed. We gave the go ahead.
> >    5. The Government sold the common shares into the open market. They
> >    still retain some preferred shares but for the most part they are out
> of
> >    the company.
> >    6. The problem at this point is too many shares at too low a price.
> >    Therefore the number of shares needed to be downsized.
> >    7. With the consent of the share holders a 1 for 10 reverse
> >    split occurred.
> >    8. The perfect storm of events, I listed earlier in this thread, has
> >    depressed the PPS well below book value for a long time.

> > Going forward, stock buyback along with bigger dividend should return
> value
> > to the long suffering share holders. However, there are hurdles to
> overcome
> > not the least of which are government meddling and the world recession.

> > On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:49:35 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > Returning money back to investors, Big Buyback 2011, 2012,
> > > 2013 ....... The day they fire Pandit, see the stock jump more than
> > > the best earnings

> > > On Jul 11, 1:01 pm, "??" <kwikkleencarw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It has always been my understanding that major contributors to a
> > > > stock's price are Earnings and Interest Rates. Since I'm not an
> expert
> > > > as Dep has claimed I will yield to your thesis mostly because it
> does
> > > > sound pretty damned convincing.

> > > > Perhaps if less "interesting times" where in place the Earnings
> clues
> > > > in the current data are:

> > > > .78 to 1.03 earnings per share.

> > > > 1) Reporting Jun/11 earning surprise was +14%, Oct/11:+52%, Dec/11:
> > > > (-24%) and Mar/12: +10% (in other words 3out of 4 quarters beat
> > > > consensus).
> > > > 2) Net income Mar/12 was almost 3X previous Quarter.
> > > > 3) Profit margins: 2010:(-25%), 2011:(-2%) and so far 2012:+5%
> > > > 4) Citi sold 10% Akbank, and 14% JV MSSB (the later as scheduled
> with
> > > > MS)
> > > > 5) $14.00 Free Cash Flow per Share.
> > > > 6) Analyst views are skewed negatively due to Citigroups buyback/
> > > > divide scuffle. (just guessing here)

> > > > Number 2 and 3 of (your reasons) are in my opinion the most
> > > > indisputable and troubling.

> > > > Looking forward to less "interesting times" and the mythical belief
> > > > that if Citigroup's pps remains low at the time of announcing the
> "Big
> > > > buyback", citigroup warrants will come into the money.

> > > > On Jul 11, 8:35 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > > > > The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
> > > > > on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on
> > > fundamentals.
> > > > >  There are very few retail investors left in the market in
> general. If
> > > new
> > > > > money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few
> > > thousand
> > > > > times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

> > > > > Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

> > > > >    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
> > > > >    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are
> > > corrupt
> > > > >    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
> > > > >    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
> > > > >    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
> > > > >    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other
> currencies.
> > > Since
> > > > >    most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking
> a
> > > headwind.

> > > > > On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > > Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the
> stock
> > > > > > could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it
> is
> > > > > > hovering around support.

>    - I stand by to many shares. The Shares outstanding before the reverse
>    split was more than the largest corporation Exxon Mobile. Something had to
>    be done.
>    - I have been purchasing Citigroup since April 2009. My first post to
>    this forum was May 15, 2009. I bought the majority of my shares before RS.
>    My average cost is currently $35.69. Since I am one of the "Before the
>    Split" owners I am not blind or ignoring the facts.
>    - The beauty of a long position is time is on your side. If the Company
>    is making a profit and that  profit is growing, then the value to the
>    shareholder will grow.
>    - You only lose 20 to 30% if you sell at a loss. Playing options and
>    short selling has the disadvantage of the time penalty. I buy and hold
>    forever. If the stock becomes worthless then I can use the tax rite off.
>    - It is a fact, we are not dealing with one man one vote but one share
>    one vote. The golden rule here is the man with the gold makes the rules.
>    - The shareholders did vote against management this year,
>    my wife included

> I think below $25 s a good point to add more shares.

> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > Too many shares at too low a price ! lol !. It was still double the
> > PPS of what it is now. The majority common shareholder voted against
> > the split in 2011, but the govt voted for it and the split happened
> > because govt held about 25% of the votes. It is easy for someone like
> > you to be blinded or ignore the facts when you came into  C after the
> > split, ask any share holder what he thinks of the split who owned th
> > shares before the split. To lose 20-30% % or more of the stock value
> > just because of the split is not palatable for anyone except perhaps
> > for someone like you who  could get shares in the $20's because of
> > it.But for the split, C would have been trading at least in the $4-$5
> > range as it usually did. The management, esp Pandit does needs to be
> > fired

> > On Jul 12, 5:24 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:
> > > A quick history:

> > >    1. Mid 2000 Greenspan coined the word "Excessive Exuberance"
> > >    2. 2008 the Housing bubble stretched to the limit.
> > >    3. 2009 for Citigroup, along with the entire banking system,
> > >    equity disappeared requireing the government to jump in with cash.
> > >    4. Pandit and the Board repaid the government with shares of stock in
> > >    order to do that they had to come to us, the holders of share, and
> > request
> > >    that more shares be printed. We gave the go ahead.
> > >    5. The Government sold the common shares into the open market. They
> > >    still retain some preferred shares but for the most part they are out
> > of
> > >    the company.
> > >    6. The problem at this point is too many shares at too low a price.
> > >    Therefore the number of shares needed to be downsized.
> > >    7. With the consent of the share holders a 1 for 10 reverse
> > >    split occurred.
> > >    8. The perfect storm of events, I listed earlier in this thread, has
> > >    depressed the PPS well below book value for a long time.

> > > Going forward, stock buyback along with bigger dividend should return
> > value
> > > to the long suffering share holders. However, there are hurdles to
> > overcome
> > > not the least of which are government meddling and the world recession.

> > > On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:49:35 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > Returning money back to investors, Big Buyback 2011, 2012,
> > > > 2013 ....... The day they fire Pandit, see the stock jump more than
> > > > the best earnings

> > > > On Jul 11, 1:01 pm, "??" <kwikkleencarw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > It has always been my understanding that major contributors to a
> > > > > stock's price are Earnings and Interest Rates. Since I'm not an
> > expert
> > > > > as Dep has claimed I will yield to your thesis mostly because it
> > does
> > > > > sound pretty damned convincing.

> > > > > Perhaps if less "interesting times" where in place the Earnings
> > clues
> > > > > in the current data are:

> > > > > .78 to 1.03 earnings per share.

> > > > > 1) Reporting Jun/11 earning surprise was +14%, Oct/11:+52%, Dec/11:
> > > > > (-24%) and Mar/12: +10% (in other words 3out of 4 quarters beat
> > > > > consensus).
> > > > > 2) Net income Mar/12 was almost 3X previous Quarter.
> > > > > 3) Profit margins: 2010:(-25%), 2011:(-2%) and so far 2012:+5%
> > > > > 4) Citi sold 10% Akbank, and 14% JV MSSB (the later as scheduled
> > with
> > > > > MS)
> > > > > 5) $14.00 Free Cash Flow per Share.
> > > > > 6) Analyst views are skewed negatively due to Citigroups buyback/
> > > > > divide scuffle. (just guessing here)

> > > > > Number 2 and 3 of (your reasons) are in my opinion the most
> > > > > indisputable and troubling.

> > > > > Looking forward to less "interesting times" and the mythical belief
> > > > > that if Citigroup's pps remains low at the time of announcing the
> > "Big
> > > > > buyback", citigroup warrants will come into the money.

> > > > > On Jul 11, 8:35 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > > > > > The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
> > > > > > on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on
> > > > fundamentals.
> > > > > >  There are very few retail investors left in the market in
> > general. If
> > > > new
> > > > > > money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few
> > > > thousand
> > > > > > times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

> > > > > > Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

> > > > > >    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
> > > > > >    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are
> > > > corrupt
> > > > > >    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
> > > > > >    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
> > > > > >    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
> > > > > >    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other
> > currencies.
> > > > Since
> > > > > >    most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking
> > a
> > > > headwind.

> > > > > > On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > > > Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the
> > stock
> > > > > > > could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it
> > is
> > > > > > > hovering around support.

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:13:32 PM UTC-4, Rancher9 wrote:

>    - I stand by to many shares. The Shares outstanding before the reverse
>    split was more than the largest corporation Exxon Mobile. Something had to
>    be done.
>    - I have been purchasing Citigroup since April 2009. My first post to
>    this forum was May 15, 2009. I bought the majority of my shares before RS.
>    My average cost is currently $35.69. Since I am one of the "Before the
>    Split" owners I am not blind or ignoring the facts.
>    - The beauty of a long position is time is on your side. If the
>    Company is making a profit and that  profit is growing, then the value to
>    the shareholder will grow.
>    - You only lose 20 to 30% if you sell at a loss. Playing options and
>    short selling has the disadvantage of the time penalty. I buy and hold
>    forever. If the stock becomes worthless then I can use the tax rite off.
>    - It is a fact, we are not dealing with one man one vote but one share
>    one vote. The golden rule here is the man with the gold makes the rules.
>    - The shareholders did vote against management this year,
>    my wife included

> I think below $25 s a good point to add more shares.

> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

>> Too many shares at too low a price ! lol !. It was still double the
>> PPS of what it is now. The majority common shareholder voted against
>> the split in 2011, but the govt voted for it and the split happened
>> because govt held about 25% of the votes. It is easy for someone like
>> you to be blinded or ignore the facts when you came into  C after the
>> split, ask any share holder what he thinks of the split who owned th
>> shares before the split. To lose 20-30% % or more of the stock value
>> just because of the split is not palatable for anyone except perhaps
>> for someone like you who  could get shares in the $20's because of
>> it.But for the split, C would have been trading at least in the $4-$5
>> range as it usually did. The management, esp Pandit does needs to be
>> fired

>> On Jul 12, 5:24 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:
>> > A quick history:

>> >    1. Mid 2000 Greenspan coined the word "Excessive Exuberance"
>> >    2. 2008 the Housing bubble stretched to the limit.
>> >    3. 2009 for Citigroup, along with the entire banking system,
>> >    equity disappeared requireing the government to jump in with cash.
>> >    4. Pandit and the Board repaid the government with shares of stock
>> in
>> >    order to do that they had to come to us, the holders of share, and
>> request
>> >    that more shares be printed. We gave the go ahead.
>> >    5. The Government sold the common shares into the open market. They
>> >    still retain some preferred shares but for the most part they are
>> out of
>> >    the company.
>> >    6. The problem at this point is too many shares at too low a price.
>> >    Therefore the number of shares needed to be downsized.
>> >    7. With the consent of the share holders a 1 for 10 reverse
>> >    split occurred.
>> >    8. The perfect storm of events, I listed earlier in this thread, has
>> >    depressed the PPS well below book value for a long time.

>> > Going forward, stock buyback along with bigger dividend should return
>> value
>> > to the long suffering share holders. However, there are hurdles to
>> overcome
>> > not the least of which are government meddling and the world recession.

>> > On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:49:35 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

>> > > Returning money back to investors, Big Buyback 2011, 2012,
>> > > 2013 ....... The day they fire Pandit, see the stock jump more than
>> > > the best earnings

>> > > On Jul 11, 1:01 pm, "??" <kwikkleencarw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > It has always been my understanding that major contributors to a
>> > > > stock's price are Earnings and Interest Rates. Since I'm not an
>> expert
>> > > > as Dep has claimed I will yield to your thesis mostly because it
>> does
>> > > > sound pretty damned convincing.

>> > > > Perhaps if less "interesting times" where in place the Earnings
>> clues
>> > > > in the current data are:

>> > > > .78 to 1.03 earnings per share.

>> > > > 1) Reporting Jun/11 earning surprise was +14%, Oct/11:+52%, Dec/11:
>> > > > (-24%) and Mar/12: +10% (in other words 3out of 4 quarters beat
>> > > > consensus).
>> > > > 2) Net income Mar/12 was almost 3X previous Quarter.
>> > > > 3) Profit margins: 2010:(-25%), 2011:(-2%) and so far 2012:+5%
>> > > > 4) Citi sold 10% Akbank, and 14% JV MSSB (the later as scheduled
>> with
>> > > > MS)
>> > > > 5) $14.00 Free Cash Flow per Share.
>> > > > 6) Analyst views are skewed negatively due to Citigroups buyback/
>> > > > divide scuffle. (just guessing here)

>> > > > Number 2 and 3 of (your reasons) are in my opinion the most
>> > > > indisputable and troubling.

>> > > > Looking forward to less "interesting times" and the mythical belief
>> > > > that if Citigroup's pps remains low at the time of announcing the
>> "Big
>> > > > buyback", citigroup warrants will come into the money.

>> > > > On Jul 11, 8:35 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

>> > > > > The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
>> > > > > on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on
>> > > fundamentals.
>> > > > >  There are very few retail investors left in the market in
>> general. If
>> > > new
>> > > > > money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few
>> > > thousand
>> > > > > times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

>> > > > > Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

>> > > > >    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
>> > > > >    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are
>> > > corrupt
>> > > > >    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
>> > > > >    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
>> > > > >    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
>> > > > >    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other
>> currencies.
>> > > Since
>> > > > >    most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are
>> bucking a
>> > > headwind.

>> > > > > On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

>> > > > > > Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the
>> stock
>> > > > > > could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26
>> it is
>> > > > > > hovering around support.

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:43:09 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:

> Buy and hold is NOT a trading strategy!!  And I told you this crash was
> coming.

> I admire your fortitude, I am not sure I could take the bleeding this
> long. I got stopped out at $33 and now only dabble in C options, which
> have been fairly profitable so far. Plan to buy below $25 and sell
> north of around $30. I disagree with reverse split, the honorable way
> to decrease the shares outstanding was to buy them back and retire
> them. that would have jumped the PPS, but expecting C to do something
> honorable for for the benefit of the common share holder is like
> expecting the devil to put out the fire.

> On Jul 12, 9:13 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> >    - I stand by to many shares. The Shares outstanding before the reverse
> >    split was more than the largest corporation Exxon Mobile. Something had to
> >    be done.
> >    - I have been purchasing Citigroup since April 2009. My first post to
> >    this forum was May 15, 2009. I bought the majority of my shares before RS.
> >    My average cost is currently $35.69. Since I am one of the "Before the
> >    Split" owners I am not blind or ignoring the facts.
> >    - The beauty of a long position is time is on your side. If the Company
> >    is making a profit and that  profit is growing, then the value to the
> >    shareholder will grow.
> >    - You only lose 20 to 30% if you sell at a loss. Playing options and
> >    short selling has the disadvantage of the time penalty. I buy and hold
> >    forever. If the stock becomes worthless then I can use the tax rite off.
> >    - It is a fact, we are not dealing with one man one vote but one share
> >    one vote. The golden rule here is the man with the gold makes the rules.
> >    - The shareholders did vote against management this year,
> >    my wife included

> > I think below $25 s a good point to add more shares.

> > On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > Too many shares at too low a price ! lol !. It was still double the
> > > PPS of what it is now. The majority common shareholder voted against
> > > the split in 2011, but the govt voted for it and the split happened
> > > because govt held about 25% of the votes. It is easy for someone like
> > > you to be blinded or ignore the facts when you came into  C after the
> > > split, ask any share holder what he thinks of the split who owned th
> > > shares before the split. To lose 20-30% % or more of the stock value
> > > just because of the split is not palatable for anyone except perhaps
> > > for someone like you who  could get shares in the $20's because of
> > > it.But for the split, C would have been trading at least in the $4-$5
> > > range as it usually did. The management, esp Pandit does needs to be
> > > fired

> > > On Jul 12, 5:24 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:
> > > > A quick history:

> > > >    1. Mid 2000 Greenspan coined the word "Excessive Exuberance"
> > > >    2. 2008 the Housing bubble stretched to the limit.
> > > >    3. 2009 for Citigroup, along with the entire banking system,
> > > >    equity disappeared requireing the government to jump in with cash.
> > > >    4. Pandit and the Board repaid the government with shares of stock in
> > > >    order to do that they had to come to us, the holders of share, and
> > > request
> > > >    that more shares be printed. We gave the go ahead.
> > > >    5. The Government sold the common shares into the open market. They
> > > >    still retain some preferred shares but for the most part they are out
> > > of
> > > >    the company.
> > > >    6. The problem at this point is too many shares at too low a price.
> > > >    Therefore the number of shares needed to be downsized.
> > > >    7. With the consent of the share holders a 1 for 10 reverse
> > > >    split occurred.
> > > >    8. The perfect storm of events, I listed earlier in this thread, has
> > > >    depressed the PPS well below book value for a long time.

> > > > Going forward, stock buyback along with bigger dividend should return
> > > value
> > > > to the long suffering share holders. However, there are hurdles to
> > > overcome
> > > > not the least of which are government meddling and the world recession.

> > > > On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:49:35 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > Returning money back to investors, Big Buyback 2011, 2012,
> > > > > 2013 ....... The day they fire Pandit, see the stock jump more than
> > > > > the best earnings

> > > > > On Jul 11, 1:01 pm, "??" <kwikkleencarw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > It has always been my understanding that major contributors to a
> > > > > > stock's price are Earnings and Interest Rates. Since I'm not an
> > > expert
> > > > > > as Dep has claimed I will yield to your thesis mostly because it
> > > does
> > > > > > sound pretty damned convincing.

> > > > > > Perhaps if less "interesting times" where in place the Earnings
> > > clues
> > > > > > in the current data are:

> > > > > > .78 to 1.03 earnings per share.

> > > > > > 1) Reporting Jun/11 earning surprise was +14%, Oct/11:+52%, Dec/11:
> > > > > > (-24%) and Mar/12: +10% (in other words 3out of 4 quarters beat
> > > > > > consensus).
> > > > > > 2) Net income Mar/12 was almost 3X previous Quarter.
> > > > > > 3) Profit margins: 2010:(-25%), 2011:(-2%) and so far 2012:+5%
> > > > > > 4) Citi sold 10% Akbank, and 14% JV MSSB (the later as scheduled
> > > with
> > > > > > MS)
> > > > > > 5) $14.00 Free Cash Flow per Share.
> > > > > > 6) Analyst views are skewed negatively due to Citigroups buyback/
> > > > > > divide scuffle. (just guessing here)

> > > > > > Number 2 and 3 of (your reasons) are in my opinion the most
> > > > > > indisputable and troubling.

> > > > > > Looking forward to less "interesting times" and the mythical belief
> > > > > > that if Citigroup's pps remains low at the time of announcing the
> > > "Big
> > > > > > buyback", citigroup warrants will come into the money.

> > > > > > On Jul 11, 8:35 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
> > > > > > > on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on
> > > > > fundamentals.
> > > > > > >  There are very few retail investors left in the market in
> > > general. If
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few
> > > > > thousand
> > > > > > > times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

> > > > > > > Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

> > > > > > >    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
> > > > > > >    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are
> > > > > corrupt
> > > > > > >    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
> > > > > > >    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
> > > > > > >    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
> > > > > > >    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other
> > > currencies.
> > > > > Since
> > > > > > >    most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking
> > > a
> > > > > headwind.

> > > > > > > On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > > > > Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the
> > > stock
> > > > > > > > could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it
> > > is
> > > > > > > > hovering around support.

>  "A paper from the New England Complex Systems Institute claims that
> they have found evidence that suggests the 2008 financial crisis was
> triggered by a "Bear Raid" market manipulation by short sellers
> against Citigroup late in 2007. The uptick rule was repealed in in
> July, 2007, and the alleged bear raid took place in November, 2007."

> Citigroup took it on the chin with the 10-1 RS (a bold move) in order
> to escape the unrelenting short raids, flash trading, to reset and
> once again begin to grow the company. RS has nothing to do with honor.
> It's all about surviving and positioning.

> It really is to soon by a long shot to say whether Vikram Pandit is
> genius or a failure. I really believe it is the former.

> 1) Aware of Citi's vulnerabilities, Pandit started selling non-core
> assets as new CEO
> 2) Pandit created the framework for an "emerging market bank with the
> focus on high value clients and corporations".
> 3) Created Citi-holdings to separate the toxic from the new Citigroup
> 4) Get out from under the relentless flash trading and short selling
> by changing the ratios. (shareholder value basically remained the
> same)
> 5) Yet to be done: Institute a share buyback and divide that will
> restore stability.

> All of this is being accomplished despite Europe falling apart, the
> economy slowing and the need to get assets in place before the
> competition does.

> On Jul 12, 1:07 pm, Nick123 <anit...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I admire your fortitude, I am not sure I could take the bleeding this
> > long. I got stopped out at $33 and now only dabble in C options, which
> > have been fairly profitable so far. Plan to buy below $25 and sell
> > north of around $30. I disagree with reverse split, the honorable way
> > to decrease the shares outstanding was to buy them back and retire
> > them. that would have jumped the PPS, but expecting C to do something
> > honorable for for the benefit of the common share holder is like
> > expecting the devil to put out the fire.

> > On Jul 12, 9:13 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > >    - I stand by to many shares. The Shares outstanding before the reverse
> > >    split was more than the largest corporation Exxon Mobile. Something had to
> > >    be done.
> > >    - I have been purchasing Citigroup since April 2009. My first post to
> > >    this forum was May 15, 2009. I bought the majority of my shares before RS.
> > >    My average cost is currently $35.69. Since I am one of the "Before the
> > >    Split" owners I am not blind or ignoring the facts.
> > >    - The beauty of a long position is time is on your side. If the Company
> > >    is making a profit and that  profit is growing, then the value to the
> > >    shareholder will grow.
> > >    - You only lose 20 to 30% if you sell at a loss. Playing options and
> > >    short selling has the disadvantage of the time penalty. I buy and hold
> > >    forever. If the stock becomes worthless then I can use the tax rite off.
> > >    - It is a fact, we are not dealing with one man one vote but one share
> > >    one vote. The golden rule here is the man with the gold makes the rules.
> > >    - The shareholders did vote against management this year,
> > >    my wife included

> > > I think below $25 s a good point to add more shares.

> > > On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > Too many shares at too low a price ! lol !. It was still double the
> > > > PPS of what it is now. The majority common shareholder voted against
> > > > the split in 2011, but the govt voted for it and the split happened
> > > > because govt held about 25% of the votes. It is easy for someone like
> > > > you to be blinded or ignore the facts when you came into  C after the
> > > > split, ask any share holder what he thinks of the split who owned th
> > > > shares before the split. To lose 20-30% % or more of the stock value
> > > > just because of the split is not palatable for anyone except perhaps
> > > > for someone like you who  could get shares in the $20's because of
> > > > it.But for the split, C would have been trading at least in the $4-$5
> > > > range as it usually did. The management, esp Pandit does needs to be
> > > > fired

> > > > On Jul 12, 5:24 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:
> > > > > A quick history:

> > > > >    1. Mid 2000 Greenspan coined the word "Excessive Exuberance"
> > > > >    2. 2008 the Housing bubble stretched to the limit.
> > > > >    3. 2009 for Citigroup, along with the entire banking system,
> > > > >    equity disappeared requireing the government to jump in with cash.
> > > > >    4. Pandit and the Board repaid the government with shares of stock in
> > > > >    order to do that they had to come to us, the holders of share, and
> > > > request
> > > > >    that more shares be printed. We gave the go ahead.
> > > > >    5. The Government sold the common shares into the open market. They
> > > > >    still retain some preferred shares but for the most part they are out
> > > > of
> > > > >    the company.
> > > > >    6. The problem at this point is too many shares at too low a price.
> > > > >    Therefore the number of shares needed to be downsized.
> > > > >    7. With the consent of the share holders a 1 for 10 reverse
> > > > >    split occurred.
> > > > >    8. The perfect storm of events, I listed earlier in this thread, has
> > > > >    depressed the PPS well below book value for a long time.

> > > > > Going forward, stock buyback along with bigger dividend should return
> > > > value
> > > > > to the long suffering share holders. However, there are hurdles to
> > > > overcome
> > > > > not the least of which are government meddling and the world recession.

> > > > > On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:49:35 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > > Returning money back to investors, Big Buyback 2011, 2012,
> > > > > > 2013 ....... The day they fire Pandit, see the stock jump more than
> > > > > > the best earnings

> > > > > > On Jul 11, 1:01 pm, "??" <kwikkleencarw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > It has always been my understanding that major contributors to a
> > > > > > > stock's price are Earnings and Interest Rates. Since I'm not an
> > > > expert
> > > > > > > as Dep has claimed I will yield to your thesis mostly because it
> > > > does
> > > > > > > sound pretty damned convincing.

> > > > > > > Perhaps if less "interesting times" where in place the Earnings
> > > > clues
> > > > > > > in the current data are:

> > > > > > > .78 to 1.03 earnings per share.

> > > > > > > 1) Reporting Jun/11 earning surprise was +14%, Oct/11:+52%, Dec/11:
> > > > > > > (-24%) and Mar/12: +10% (in other words 3out of 4 quarters beat
> > > > > > > consensus).
> > > > > > > 2) Net income Mar/12 was almost 3X previous Quarter.
> > > > > > > 3) Profit margins: 2010:(-25%), 2011:(-2%) and so far 2012:+5%
> > > > > > > 4) Citi sold 10% Akbank, and 14% JV MSSB (the later as scheduled
> > > > with
> > > > > > > MS)
> > > > > > > 5) $14.00 Free Cash Flow per Share.
> > > > > > > 6) Analyst views are skewed negatively due to Citigroups buyback/
> > > > > > > divide scuffle. (just guessing here)

> > > > > > > Number 2 and 3 of (your reasons) are in my opinion the most
> > > > > > > indisputable and troubling.

> > > > > > > Looking forward to less "interesting times" and the mythical belief
> > > > > > > that if Citigroup's pps remains low at the time of announcing the
> > > > "Big
> > > > > > > buyback", citigroup warrants will come into the money.

> > > > > > > On Jul 11, 8:35 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > > The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
> > > > > > > > on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on
> > > > > > fundamentals.
> > > > > > > >  There are very few retail investors left in the market in
> > > > general. If
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few
> > > > > > thousand
> > > > > > > > times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

> > > > > > > > Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

> > > > > > > >    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
> > > > > > > >    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are
> > > > > > corrupt
> > > > > > > >    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
> > > > > > > >    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
> > > > > > > >    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
> > > > > > > >    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other
> > > > currencies.
> > > > > > Since
> > > > > > > >    most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking
> > > > a
> > > > > > headwind.

> > > > > > > > On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > > > > > Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the
> > > > stock
> > > > > > > > > could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > hovering around support.

On Friday, July 13, 2012 7:25:42 AM UTC-5, ?? wrote:

> "A paper from the New England Complex Systems Institute claims that
> they have found evidence that suggests the 2008 financial crisis was
> triggered by a "Bear Raid" market manipulation by short sellers
> against Citigroup late in 2007. The uptick rule was repealed in in
> July, 2007, and the alleged bear raid took place in November, 2007."

> Citigroup took it on the chin with the 10-1 RS (a bold move) in order
> to escape the unrelenting short raids, flash trading, to reset and
> once again begin to grow the company. RS has nothing to do with honor.
> It's all about surviving and positioning.

> It really is to soon by a long shot to say whether Vikram Pandit is
> genius or a failure. I really believe it is the former.

> 1) Aware of Citi's vulnerabilities, Pandit started selling non-core
> assets as new CEO
> 2) Pandit created the framework for an "emerging market bank with the
> focus on high value clients and corporations".
> 3) Created Citi-holdings to separate the toxic from the new Citigroup
> 4) Get out from under the relentless flash trading and short selling
> by changing the ratios. (shareholder value basically remained the
> same)
> 5) Yet to be done: Institute a share buyback and divide that will
> restore stability.

> All of this is being accomplished despite Europe falling apart, the
> economy slowing and the need to get assets in place before the
> competition does.

> On Jul 12, 1:07 pm, Nick123 <anit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I admire your fortitude, I am not sure I could take the bleeding this
> > long. I got stopped out at $33 and now only dabble in C options, which
> > have been fairly profitable so far. Plan to buy below $25 and sell
> > north of around $30. I disagree with reverse split, the honorable way
> > to decrease the shares outstanding was to buy them back and retire
> > them. that would have jumped the PPS, but expecting C to do something
> > honorable for for the benefit of the common share holder is like
> > expecting the devil to put out the fire.

> > On Jul 12, 9:13 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > >    - I stand by to many shares. The Shares outstanding before the
> reverse
> > >    split was more than the largest corporation Exxon Mobile. Something
> had to
> > >    be done.
> > >    - I have been purchasing Citigroup since April 2009. My first post
> to
> > >    this forum was May 15, 2009. I bought the majority of my shares
> before RS.
> > >    My average cost is currently $35.69. Since I am one of the "Before
> the
> > >    Split" owners I am not blind or ignoring the facts.
> > >    - The beauty of a long position is time is on your side. If the
> Company
> > >    is making a profit and that  profit is growing, then the value to
> the
> > >    shareholder will grow.
> > >    - You only lose 20 to 30% if you sell at a loss. Playing options
> and
> > >    short selling has the disadvantage of the time penalty. I buy and
> hold
> > >    forever. If the stock becomes worthless then I can use the tax rite
> off.
> > >    - It is a fact, we are not dealing with one man one vote but one
> share
> > >    one vote. The golden rule here is the man with the gold makes the
> rules.
> > >    - The shareholders did vote against management this year,
> > >    my wife included

> > > I think below $25 s a good point to add more shares.

> > > On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > Too many shares at too low a price ! lol !. It was still double the
> > > > PPS of what it is now. The majority common shareholder voted against
> > > > the split in 2011, but the govt voted for it and the split happened
> > > > because govt held about 25% of the votes. It is easy for someone
> like
> > > > you to be blinded or ignore the facts when you came into  C after
> the
> > > > split, ask any share holder what he thinks of the split who owned th
> > > > shares before the split. To lose 20-30% % or more of the stock value
> > > > just because of the split is not palatable for anyone except perhaps
> > > > for someone like you who  could get shares in the $20's because of
> > > > it.But for the split, C would have been trading at least in the
> $4-$5
> > > > range as it usually did. The management, esp Pandit does needs to be
> > > > fired

> > > > On Jul 12, 5:24 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:
> > > > > A quick history:

> > > > >    1. Mid 2000 Greenspan coined the word "Excessive Exuberance"
> > > > >    2. 2008 the Housing bubble stretched to the limit.
> > > > >    3. 2009 for Citigroup, along with the entire banking system,
> > > > >    equity disappeared requireing the government to jump in with
> cash.
> > > > >    4. Pandit and the Board repaid the government with shares of
> stock in
> > > > >    order to do that they had to come to us, the holders of share,
> and
> > > > request
> > > > >    that more shares be printed. We gave the go ahead.
> > > > >    5. The Government sold the common shares into the open market.
> They
> > > > >    still retain some preferred shares but for the most part they
> are out
> > > > of
> > > > >    the company.
> > > > >    6. The problem at this point is too many shares at too low a
> price.
> > > > >    Therefore the number of shares needed to be downsized.
> > > > >    7. With the consent of the share holders a 1 for 10 reverse
> > > > >    split occurred.
> > > > >    8. The perfect storm of events, I listed earlier in this
> thread, has
> > > > >    depressed the PPS well below book value for a long time.

> > > > > Going forward, stock buyback along with bigger dividend should
> return
> > > > value
> > > > > to the long suffering share holders. However, there are hurdles to
> > > > overcome
> > > > > not the least of which are government meddling and the world
> recession.

> > > > > On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:49:35 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > > Returning money back to investors, Big Buyback 2011, 2012,
> > > > > > 2013 ....... The day they fire Pandit, see the stock jump more
> than
> > > > > > the best earnings

> > > > > > On Jul 11, 1:01 pm, "??" <kwikkleencarw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > It has always been my understanding that major contributors to
> a
> > > > > > > stock's price are Earnings and Interest Rates. Since I'm not
> an
> > > > expert
> > > > > > > as Dep has claimed I will yield to your thesis mostly because
> it
> > > > does
> > > > > > > sound pretty damned convincing.

> > > > > > > Perhaps if less "interesting times" where in place the
> Earnings
> > > > clues
> > > > > > > in the current data are:

> > > > > > > .78 to 1.03 earnings per share.

> > > > > > > 1) Reporting Jun/11 earning surprise was +14%, Oct/11:+52%,
> Dec/11:
> > > > > > > (-24%) and Mar/12: +10% (in other words 3out of 4 quarters
> beat
> > > > > > > consensus).
> > > > > > > 2) Net income Mar/12 was almost 3X previous Quarter.
> > > > > > > 3) Profit margins: 2010:(-25%), 2011:(-2%) and so far 2012:+5%
> > > > > > > 4) Citi sold 10% Akbank, and 14% JV MSSB (the later as
> scheduled
> > > > with
> > > > > > > MS)
> > > > > > > 5) $14.00 Free Cash Flow per Share.
> > > > > > > 6) Analyst views are skewed negatively due to Citigroups
> buyback/
> > > > > > > divide scuffle. (just guessing here)

> > > > > > > Number 2 and 3 of (your reasons) are in my opinion the most
> > > > > > > indisputable and troubling.

> > > > > > > Looking forward to less "interesting times" and the mythical
> belief
> > > > > > > that if Citigroup's pps remains low at the time of announcing
> the
> > > > "Big
> > > > > > > buyback", citigroup warrants will come into the money.

> > > > > > > On Jul 11, 8:35 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > > The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
> > > > > > > > on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on
> > > > > > fundamentals.
> > > > > > > >  There are very few retail investors left in the market in
> > > > general. If
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a
> few
> > > > > > thousand
> > > > > > > > times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

> > > > > > > > Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few
> reasons:

> > > > > > > >    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a
> recession
> > > > > > > >    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big
> banks are
> > > > > > corrupt
> > > > > > > >    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
> > > > > > > >    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
> > > > > > > >    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
> > > > > > > >    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations

> JPM same quarter lower but still beats consensus.

> On Jul 13, 8:25 am, "??" <kwikkleencarw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >  "A paper from the New England Complex Systems Institute claims that
> > they have found evidence that suggests the 2008 financial crisis was
> > triggered by a "Bear Raid" market manipulation by short sellers
> > against Citigroup late in 2007. The uptick rule was repealed in in
> > July, 2007, and the alleged bear raid took place in November, 2007."

> > Citigroup took it on the chin with the 10-1 RS (a bold move) in order
> > to escape the unrelenting short raids, flash trading, to reset and
> > once again begin to grow the company. RS has nothing to do with honor.
> > It's all about surviving and positioning.

> > It really is to soon by a long shot to say whether Vikram Pandit is
> > genius or a failure. I really believe it is the former.

> > 1) Aware of Citi's vulnerabilities, Pandit started selling non-core
> > assets as new CEO
> > 2) Pandit created the framework for an "emerging market bank with the
> > focus on high value clients and corporations".
> > 3) Created Citi-holdings to separate the toxic from the new Citigroup
> > 4) Get out from under the relentless flash trading and short selling
> > by changing the ratios. (shareholder value basically remained the
> > same)
> > 5) Yet to be done: Institute a share buyback and divide that will
> > restore stability.

> > All of this is being accomplished despite Europe falling apart, the
> > economy slowing and the need to get assets in place before the
> > competition does.

> > On Jul 12, 1:07 pm, Nick123 <anit...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > I admire your fortitude, I am not sure I could take the bleeding this
> > > long. I got stopped out at $33 and now only dabble in C options, which
> > > have been fairly profitable so far. Plan to buy below $25 and sell
> > > north of around $30. I disagree with reverse split, the honorable way
> > > to decrease the shares outstanding was to buy them back and retire
> > > them. that would have jumped the PPS, but expecting C to do something
> > > honorable for for the benefit of the common share holder is like
> > > expecting the devil to put out the fire.

> > > On Jul 12, 9:13 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > > >    - I stand by to many shares. The Shares outstanding before the reverse
> > > >    split was more than the largest corporation Exxon Mobile. Something had to
> > > >    be done.
> > > >    - I have been purchasing Citigroup since April 2009. My first post to
> > > >    this forum was May 15, 2009. I bought the majority of my shares before RS.
> > > >    My average cost is currently $35.69. Since I am one of the "Before the
> > > >    Split" owners I am not blind or ignoring the facts.
> > > >    - The beauty of a long position is time is on your side. If the Company
> > > >    is making a profit and that  profit is growing, then the value to the
> > > >    shareholder will grow.
> > > >    - You only lose 20 to 30% if you sell at a loss. Playing options and
> > > >    short selling has the disadvantage of the time penalty. I buy and hold
> > > >    forever. If the stock becomes worthless then I can use the tax rite off.
> > > >    - It is a fact, we are not dealing with one man one vote but one share
> > > >    one vote. The golden rule here is the man with the gold makes the rules.
> > > >    - The shareholders did vote against management this year,
> > > >    my wife included

> > > > I think below $25 s a good point to add more shares.

> > > > On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > Too many shares at too low a price ! lol !. It was still double the
> > > > > PPS of what it is now. The majority common shareholder voted against
> > > > > the split in 2011, but the govt voted for it and the split happened
> > > > > because govt held about 25% of the votes. It is easy for someone like
> > > > > you to be blinded or ignore the facts when you came into  C after the
> > > > > split, ask any share holder what he thinks of the split who owned th
> > > > > shares before the split. To lose 20-30% % or more of the stock value
> > > > > just because of the split is not palatable for anyone except perhaps
> > > > > for someone like you who  could get shares in the $20's because of
> > > > > it.But for the split, C would have been trading at least in the $4-$5
> > > > > range as it usually did. The management, esp Pandit does needs to be
> > > > > fired

> > > > > On Jul 12, 5:24 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:
> > > > > > A quick history:

> > > > > >    1. Mid 2000 Greenspan coined the word "Excessive Exuberance"
> > > > > >    2. 2008 the Housing bubble stretched to the limit.
> > > > > >    3. 2009 for Citigroup, along with the entire banking system,
> > > > > >    equity disappeared requireing the government to jump in with cash.
> > > > > >    4. Pandit and the Board repaid the government with shares of stock in
> > > > > >    order to do that they had to come to us, the holders of share, and
> > > > > request
> > > > > >    that more shares be printed. We gave the go ahead.
> > > > > >    5. The Government sold the common shares into the open market. They
> > > > > >    still retain some preferred shares but for the most part they are out
> > > > > of
> > > > > >    the company.
> > > > > >    6. The problem at this point is too many shares at too low a price.
> > > > > >    Therefore the number of shares needed to be downsized.
> > > > > >    7. With the consent of the share holders a 1 for 10 reverse
> > > > > >    split occurred.
> > > > > >    8. The perfect storm of events, I listed earlier in this thread, has
> > > > > >    depressed the PPS well below book value for a long time.

> > > > > > Going forward, stock buyback along with bigger dividend should return
> > > > > value
> > > > > > to the long suffering share holders. However, there are hurdles to
> > > > > overcome
> > > > > > not the least of which are government meddling and the world recession.

> > > > > > On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:49:35 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > > > Returning money back to investors, Big Buyback 2011, 2012,
> > > > > > > 2013 ....... The day they fire Pandit, see the stock jump more than
> > > > > > > the best earnings

> > > > > > > On Jul 11, 1:01 pm, "??" <kwikkleencarw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > It has always been my understanding that major contributors to a
> > > > > > > > stock's price are Earnings and Interest Rates. Since I'm not an
> > > > > expert
> > > > > > > > as Dep has claimed I will yield to your thesis mostly because it
> > > > > does
> > > > > > > > sound pretty damned convincing.

> > > > > > > > Perhaps if less "interesting times" where in place the Earnings
> > > > > clues
> > > > > > > > in the current data are:

> > > > > > > > .78 to 1.03 earnings per share.

> > > > > > > > 1) Reporting Jun/11 earning surprise was +14%, Oct/11:+52%, Dec/11:
> > > > > > > > (-24%) and Mar/12: +10% (in other words 3out of 4 quarters beat
> > > > > > > > consensus).
> > > > > > > > 2) Net income Mar/12 was almost 3X previous Quarter.
> > > > > > > > 3) Profit margins: 2010:(-25%), 2011:(-2%) and so far 2012:+5%
> > > > > > > > 4) Citi sold 10% Akbank, and 14% JV MSSB (the later as scheduled
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > MS)
> > > > > > > > 5) $14.00 Free Cash Flow per Share.
> > > > > > > > 6) Analyst views are skewed negatively due to Citigroups buyback/
> > > > > > > > divide scuffle. (just guessing here)

> > > > > > > > Number 2 and 3 of (your reasons) are in my opinion the most
> > > > > > > > indisputable and troubling.

> > > > > > > > Looking forward to less "interesting times" and the mythical belief
> > > > > > > > that if Citigroup's pps remains low at the time of announcing the
> > > > > "Big
> > > > > > > > buyback", citigroup warrants will come into the money.

> > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 8:35 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
> > > > > > > > > on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on
> > > > > > > fundamentals.
> > > > > > > > >  There are very few retail investors left in the market in
> > > > > general. If
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few
> > > > > > > thousand
> > > > > > > > > times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

> > > > > > > > > Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

> > > > > > > > >    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
> > > > > > > > >    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are
> > > > > > > corrupt
> > > > > > > > >    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
> > > > > > > > >    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
> > > > > > > > >    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
> > > > > > > > >    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other
> > > > > currencies.
> > > > > > > Since
> > > > > > > > >    most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > headwind.

> > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the
> > > > > stock
> > > > > > > > > > could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > hovering around support.

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 12:54:13 PM UTC-5, Rancher9 wrote:

>  The Numbers to beat "The current estimates: 0.90 EPS and $18.93-B in
> revenue."

> http://www.livetradingnews.com/bank-earnings-preview-jpm-wfc-bac-c-gs...

> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 7:35:33 AM UTC-5, Rancher9 wrote:

>> The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
>> on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on fundamentals.
>>  There are very few retail investors left in the market in general. If new
>> money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few thousand
>> times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

>> Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

>>    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
>>    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are corrupt
>>    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
>>    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
>>    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
>>    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other currencies.
>>    Since most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking a
>>    headwind.

>> On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

>>> Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the stock
>>> could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it is
>>> hovering around support.

On Friday, July 13, 2012 12:26:28 PM UTC-4, Rancher9 wrote:

> Here is another estimate for what it is worth:
> "
> On Monday, July 16th, *Citigroup Inc. *will tell us how its second
> quarter went. Forecasters are saying the bank is likely to generate $18.76
> billion in revenue, compared to $20.62 billion for the same quarter in
> 2011. Per share earnings for C are expected to roll in at $0.89, versus
> $1.09 from a year ago.

> http://www.smallcapnetwork.com/Bank-Earnings-Are-Hit-Miss-So-Far-C-JP...

> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 12:54:13 PM UTC-5, Rancher9 wrote:

>>  The Numbers to beat "The current estimates: 0.90 EPS and $18.93-B in
>> revenue."

>> http://www.livetradingnews.com/bank-earnings-preview-jpm-wfc-bac-c-gs...

>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 7:35:33 AM UTC-5, Rancher9 wrote:

>>> The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
>>> on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on fundamentals.
>>>  There are very few retail investors left in the market in general. If new
>>> money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few thousand
>>> times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

>>> Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

>>>    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
>>>    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are
>>>    corrupt
>>>    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
>>>    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
>>>    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
>>>    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other currencies.
>>>    Since most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking a
>>>    headwind.

>>> On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

>>>> Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the stock
>>>> could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it is
>>>> hovering around support.

On Friday, July 13, 2012 12:13:35 PM UTC-5, Dep S wrote:

> Why do you think that is Rancher9? The economy hasnt grown that much since
> last year but it has at least grown a little so I wonder why C hasnt been
> able to ride that. And if earning are expected to be down why are we up so
> much today when not much seems to have changed since the beginning of the
> week?

> On Friday, July 13, 2012 12:26:28 PM UTC-4, Rancher9 wrote:

>> Here is another estimate for what it is worth:
>> "
>> On Monday, July 16th, *Citigroup Inc. *will tell us how its second
>> quarter went. Forecasters are saying the bank is likely to generate $18.76
>> billion in revenue, compared to $20.62 billion for the same quarter in
>> 2011. Per share earnings for C are expected to roll in at $0.89, versus
>> $1.09 from a year ago.

>> http://www.smallcapnetwork.com/Bank-Earnings-Are-Hit-Miss-So-Far-C-JP...

>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 12:54:13 PM UTC-5, Rancher9 wrote:

>>>  The Numbers to beat "The current estimates: 0.90 EPS and $18.93-B in
>>> revenue."

>>> http://www.livetradingnews.com/bank-earnings-preview-jpm-wfc-bac-c-gs...

>>> On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 7:35:33 AM UTC-5, Rancher9 wrote:

>>>> The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
>>>> on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement is not based on fundamentals.
>>>>  There are very few retail investors left in the market in general. If new
>>>> money comes in to a stock it bounces between black boxes a few thousand
>>>> times run by the big houses ans hedge funds.

>>>> Citigroup's price is not set by fundamentals for a few reasons:

>>>>    1. Macro economic- The world is suffering from a recession
>>>>    2. Sector erosion- The business practices of the big banks are
>>>>    corrupt
>>>>    3. Loss of Good Will- Like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
>>>>    this intangible asset is hard to recover once lost.
>>>>    4. Q2 is a tough one to have big earnings surprises.
>>>>    5. The dollar is strengthening in relations to other currencies.
>>>>    Since most of Cite's growth is in the emerging market, we are bucking a
>>>>    headwind.

>>>> On Monday, July 9, 2012 10:04:08 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

>>>>> Will they be positive or -ve ? If  street views it as -ve the stock
>>>>> could drop 7-10%, if positive the reverse could occur. At $26 it is
>>>>> hovering around support.

ancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:
> In January 2009 Citigroup was trading below the $5 level which is
> the minimum price for listing as a DOW industrial stock. If they had chosen
> to do a 1 for 10 Reverse split they could have, on paper, kept their
> listing. However it had never been done. On June 8, 2012 Citigroup was
> delisted and Bank of America replaced it.

> July1, 2009 AIG did a 1 for 20 reverse split to stop its free-fall. In this
> country, there are very few companies that survive more than a year after a
> reverse split. A RS are seen as the last desperate grasp at straws for a
> drowning company.  AIG demonstrated that a company could survive the
> stigma. about 2 years later on May 6, 2011 it was  Citigroup's turn
> to execute a RS.  They did it for  different reasons as  I have pointed.

> Executing this Reverse split is a gutsy move. It was not without cost
> but Citigroup has survived. I do not think the future story will be
> dominated by a life or death struggle.

> On Friday, July 13, 2012 7:25:42 AM UTC-5, ?? wrote:

> > "A paper from the New England Complex Systems Institute claims that
> > they have found evidence that suggests the 2008 financial crisis was
> > triggered by a "Bear Raid" market manipulation by short sellers
> > against Citigroup late in 2007. The uptick rule was repealed in in
> > July, 2007, and the alleged bear raid took place in November, 2007."

> > Citigroup took it on the chin with the 10-1 RS (a bold move) in order
> > to escape the unrelenting short raids, flash trading, to reset and
> > once again begin to grow the company. RS has nothing to do with honor.
> > It's all about surviving and positioning.

> > It really is to soon by a long shot to say whether Vikram Pandit is
> > genius or a failure. I really believe it is the former.

> > 1) Aware of Citi's vulnerabilities, Pandit started selling non-core
> > assets as new CEO
> > 2) Pandit created the framework for an "emerging market bank with the
> > focus on high value clients and corporations".
> > 3) Created Citi-holdings to separate the toxic from the new Citigroup
> > 4) Get out from under the relentless flash trading and short selling
> > by changing the ratios. (shareholder value basically remained the
> > same)
> > 5) Yet to be done: Institute a share buyback and divide that will
> > restore stability.

> > All of this is being accomplished despite Europe falling apart, the
> > economy slowing and the need to get assets in place before the
> > competition does.

> > On Jul 12, 1:07 pm, Nick123 <anit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I admire your fortitude, I am not sure I could take the bleeding this
> > > long. I got stopped out at $33 and now only dabble in C options, which
> > > have been fairly profitable so far. Plan to buy below $25 and sell
> > > north of around $30. I disagree with reverse split, the honorable way
> > > to decrease the shares outstanding was to buy them back and retire
> > > them. that would have jumped the PPS, but expecting C to do something
> > > honorable for for the benefit of the common share holder is like
> > > expecting the devil to put out the fire.

> > > On Jul 12, 9:13 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > > >    - I stand by to many shares. The Shares outstanding before the
> > reverse
> > > >    split was more than the largest corporation Exxon Mobile. Something
> > had to
> > > >    be done.
> > > >    - I have been purchasing Citigroup since April 2009. My first post
> > to
> > > >    this forum was May 15, 2009. I bought the majority of my shares
> > before RS.
> > > >    My average cost is currently $35.69. Since I am one of the "Before
> > the
> > > >    Split" owners I am not blind or ignoring the facts.
> > > >    - The beauty of a long position is time is on your side. If the
> > Company
> > > >    is making a profit and that  profit is growing, then the value to
> > the
> > > >    shareholder will grow.
> > > >    - You only lose 20 to 30% if you sell at a loss. Playing options
> > and
> > > >    short selling has the disadvantage of the time penalty. I buy and
> > hold
> > > >    forever. If the stock becomes worthless then I can use the tax rite
> > off.
> > > >    - It is a fact, we are not dealing with one man one vote but one
> > share
> > > >    one vote. The golden rule here is the man with the gold makes the
> > rules.
> > > >    - The shareholders did vote against management this year,
> > > >    my wife included

> > > > I think below $25 s a good point to add more shares.

> > > > On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > Too many shares at too low a price ! lol !. It was still double the
> > > > > PPS of what it is now. The majority common shareholder voted against
> > > > > the split in 2011, but the govt voted for it and the split happened
> > > > > because govt held about 25% of the votes. It is easy for someone
> > like
> > > > > you to be blinded or ignore the facts when you came into  C after
> > the
> > > > > split, ask any share holder what he thinks of the split who owned th
> > > > > shares before the split. To lose 20-30% % or more of the stock value
> > > > > just because of the split is not palatable for anyone except perhaps
> > > > > for someone like you who  could get shares in the $20's because of
> > > > > it.But for the split, C would have been trading at least in the
> > $4-$5
> > > > > range as it usually did. The management, esp Pandit does needs to be
> > > > > fired

> > > > > On Jul 12, 5:24 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:
> > > > > > A quick history:

> > > > > >    1. Mid 2000 Greenspan coined the word "Excessive Exuberance"
> > > > > >    2. 2008 the Housing bubble stretched to the limit.
> > > > > >    3. 2009 for Citigroup, along with the entire banking system,
> > > > > >    equity disappeared requireing the government to jump in with
> > cash.
> > > > > >    4. Pandit and the Board repaid the government with shares of
> > stock in
> > > > > >    order to do that they had to come to us, the holders of share,
> > and
> > > > > request
> > > > > >    that more shares be printed. We gave the go ahead.
> > > > > >    5. The Government sold the common shares into the open market.
> > They
> > > > > >    still retain some preferred shares but for the most part they
> > are out
> > > > > of
> > > > > >    the company.
> > > > > >    6. The problem at this point is too many shares at too low a
> > price.
> > > > > >    Therefore the number of shares needed to be downsized.
> > > > > >    7. With the consent of the share holders a 1 for 10 reverse
> > > > > >    split occurred.
> > > > > >    8. The perfect storm of events, I listed earlier in this
> > thread, has
> > > > > >    depressed the PPS well below book value for a long time.

> > > > > > Going forward, stock buyback along with bigger dividend should
> > return
> > > > > value
> > > > > > to the long suffering share holders. However, there are hurdles to
> > > > > overcome
> > > > > > not the least of which are government meddling and the world
> > recession.

> > > > > > On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:49:35 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > > > Returning money back to investors, Big Buyback 2011, 2012,
> > > > > > > 2013 ....... The day they fire Pandit, see the stock jump more
> > than
> > > > > > > the best earnings

> > > > > > > On Jul 11, 1:01 pm, "??" <kwikkleencarw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > It has always been my understanding that major contributors to
> > a
> > > > > > > > stock's price are Earnings and Interest Rates. Since I'm not
> > an
> > > > > expert
> > > > > > > > as Dep has claimed I will yield to your thesis mostly because
> > it
> > > > > does
> > > > > > > > sound pretty damned convincing.

> > > > > > > > Perhaps if less "interesting times" where in place the
> > Earnings
> > > > > clues
> > > > > > > > in the current data are:

> > > > > > > > .78 to 1.03 earnings per share.

> > > > > > > > 1) Reporting Jun/11 earning surprise was +14%, Oct/11:+52%,
> > Dec/11:
> > > > > > > > (-24%) and Mar/12: +10% (in other words 3out of 4 quarters
> > beat
> > > > > > > > consensus).
> > > > > > > > 2) Net income Mar/12 was almost 3X previous Quarter.
> > > > > > > > 3) Profit margins: 2010:(-25%), 2011:(-2%) and so far 2012:+5%
> > > > > > > > 4) Citi sold 10% Akbank, and 14% JV MSSB (the later as
> > scheduled
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > MS)
> > > > > > > > 5) $14.00 Free Cash Flow per Share.
> > > > > > > > 6) Analyst views are skewed negatively due to Citigroups
> > buyback/
> > > > > > > > divide scuffle. (just guessing here)

> > > > > > > > Number 2 and 3 of (your reasons) are in my opinion the most
> > > > > > > > indisputable and troubling.

> > > > > > > > Looking forward to less "interesting times" and the mythical
> > belief
> > > > > > > > that if Citigroup's pps remains low at the time of announcing
> > the
> > > > > "Big
> > > > > > > > buyback", citigroup warrants will come into the money.

> > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 8:35 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > The problem with predicting the range of drop or rise based
> > > > > > > > > on fundamentals of earnings is, the movement

On Friday, July 13, 2012 5:16:59 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> Sometimes I wonder about you Rancher, I sometimes see you make logic
> to support our positions. As for doing a  reverse split to escape
> constant bear raids was the dumbest idea, since when the stock price
> is higher, it is easier to be successful in shorting a stock like C.
> the bottom just moved from approx $4 to $25($2.50 before split). C
> listing or delisiting as Dow stock does not mean jack to its stock
> price is pretty apparent.

> On Jul 13, 9:11 am, R
> ancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:
> > In January 2009 Citigroup was trading below the $5 level which is
> > the minimum price for listing as a DOW industrial stock. If they had
> chosen
> > to do a 1 for 10 Reverse split they could have, on paper, kept their
> > listing. However it had never been done. On June 8, 2012 Citigroup was
> > delisted and Bank of America replaced it.

> > July1, 2009 AIG did a 1 for 20 reverse split to stop its free-fall. In
> this
> > country, there are very few companies that survive more than a year
> after a
> > reverse split. A RS are seen as the last desperate grasp at straws for a
> > drowning company.  AIG demonstrated that a company could survive the
> > stigma. about 2 years later on May 6, 2011 it was  Citigroup's turn
> > to execute a RS.  They did it for  different reasons as  I have pointed.

> > Executing this Reverse split is a gutsy move. It was not without cost
> > but Citigroup has survived. I do not think the future story will be
> > dominated by a life or death struggle.

> > On Friday, July 13, 2012 7:25:42 AM UTC-5, ?? wrote:

> > > "A paper from the New England Complex Systems Institute claims that
> > > they have found evidence that suggests the 2008 financial crisis was
> > > triggered by a "Bear Raid" market manipulation by short sellers
> > > against Citigroup late in 2007. The uptick rule was repealed in in
> > > July, 2007, and the alleged bear raid took place in November, 2007."

> > > Citigroup took it on the chin with the 10-1 RS (a bold move) in order
> > > to escape the unrelenting short raids, flash trading, to reset and
> > > once again begin to grow the company. RS has nothing to do with honor.
> > > It's all about surviving and positioning.

> > > It really is to soon by a long shot to say whether Vikram Pandit is
> > > genius or a failure. I really believe it is the former.

> > > 1) Aware of Citi's vulnerabilities, Pandit started selling non-core
> > > assets as new CEO
> > > 2) Pandit created the framework for an "emerging market bank with the
> > > focus on high value clients and corporations".
> > > 3) Created Citi-holdings to separate the toxic from the new Citigroup
> > > 4) Get out from under the relentless flash trading and short selling
> > > by changing the ratios. (shareholder value basically remained the
> > > same)
> > > 5) Yet to be done: Institute a share buyback and divide that will
> > > restore stability.

> > > All of this is being accomplished despite Europe falling apart, the
> > > economy slowing and the need to get assets in place before the
> > > competition does.

> > > On Jul 12, 1:07 pm, Nick123 <anit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I admire your fortitude, I am not sure I could take the bleeding
> this
> > > > long. I got stopped out at $33 and now only dabble in C options,
> which
> > > > have been fairly profitable so far. Plan to buy below $25 and sell
> > > > north of around $30. I disagree with reverse split, the honorable
> way
> > > > to decrease the shares outstanding was to buy them back and retire
> > > > them. that would have jumped the PPS, but expecting C to do
> something
> > > > honorable for for the benefit of the common share holder is like
> > > > expecting the devil to put out the fire.

> > > > On Jul 12, 9:13 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:

> > > > >    - I stand by to many shares. The Shares outstanding before the
> > > reverse
> > > > >    split was more than the largest corporation Exxon Mobile.
> Something
> > > had to
> > > > >    be done.
> > > > >    - I have been purchasing Citigroup since April 2009. My first
> post
> > > to
> > > > >    this forum was May 15, 2009. I bought the majority of my shares
> > > before RS.
> > > > >    My average cost is currently $35.69. Since I am one of the
> "Before
> > > the
> > > > >    Split" owners I am not blind or ignoring the facts.
> > > > >    - The beauty of a long position is time is on your side. If the
> > > Company
> > > > >    is making a profit and that  profit is growing, then the value
> to
> > > the
> > > > >    shareholder will grow.
> > > > >    - You only lose 20 to 30% if you sell at a loss. Playing
> options
> > > and
> > > > >    short selling has the disadvantage of the time penalty. I buy
> and
> > > hold
> > > > >    forever. If the stock becomes worthless then I can use the tax
> rite
> > > off.
> > > > >    - It is a fact, we are not dealing with one man one vote but
> one
> > > share
> > > > >    one vote. The golden rule here is the man with the gold makes
> the
> > > rules.
> > > > >    - The shareholders did vote against management this year,
> > > > >    my wife included

> > > > > I think below $25 s a good point to add more shares.

> > > > > On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:35:21 AM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > > Too many shares at too low a price ! lol !. It was still double
> the
> > > > > > PPS of what it is now. The majority common shareholder voted
> against
> > > > > > the split in 2011, but the govt voted for it and the split
> happened
> > > > > > because govt held about 25% of the votes. It is easy for someone
> > > like
> > > > > > you to be blinded or ignore the facts when you came into  C
> after
> > > the
> > > > > > split, ask any share holder what he thinks of the split who
> owned th
> > > > > > shares before the split. To lose 20-30% % or more of the stock
> value
> > > > > > just because of the split is not palatable for anyone except
> perhaps
> > > > > > for someone like you who  could get shares in the $20's because
> of
> > > > > > it.But for the split, C would have been trading at least in the
> > > $4-$5
> > > > > > range as it usually did. The management, esp Pandit does needs
> to be
> > > > > > fired

> > > > > > On Jul 12, 5:24 am, Rancher9 <Ranch...@ctesc.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > A quick history:

> > > > > > >    1. Mid 2000 Greenspan coined the word "Excessive
> Exuberance"
> > > > > > >    2. 2008 the Housing bubble stretched to the limit.
> > > > > > >    3. 2009 for Citigroup, along with the entire banking
> system,
> > > > > > >    equity disappeared requireing the government to jump in
> with
> > > cash.
> > > > > > >    4. Pandit and the Board repaid the government with shares
> of
> > > stock in
> > > > > > >    order to do that they had to come to us, the holders of
> share,
> > > and
> > > > > > request
> > > > > > >    that more shares be printed. We gave the go ahead.
> > > > > > >    5. The Government sold the common shares into the open
> market.
> > > They
> > > > > > >    still retain some preferred shares but for the most part
> they
> > > are out
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >    the company.
> > > > > > >    6. The problem at this point is too many shares at too low
> a
> > > price.
> > > > > > >    Therefore the number of shares needed to be downsized.
> > > > > > >    7. With the consent of the share holders a 1 for 10 reverse
> > > > > > >    split occurred.
> > > > > > >    8. The perfect storm of events, I listed earlier in this
> > > thread, has
> > > > > > >    depressed the PPS well below book value for a long time.

> > > > > > > Going forward, stock buyback along with bigger dividend should
> > > return
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > to the long suffering share holders. However, there are
> hurdles to
> > > > > > overcome
> > > > > > > not the least of which are government meddling and the world
> > > recession.

> > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:49:35 PM UTC-5, Nick123 wrote:

> > > > > > > > Returning money back to investors, Big Buyback 2011, 2012,
> > > > > > > > 2013 ....... The day they fire Pandit, see the stock jump
> more
> > > than
> > > > > > > > the best earnings

> > > > > > > > On Jul 11, 1:01 pm, "??" <kwikkleencarw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > It has always been my understanding that major
> contributors to
> > > a
> > > > > > > > > stock's price are Earnings and Interest Rates. Since I'm
> not
> > > an
> > > > > > expert
> > > > > > > > > as Dep has claimed I will yield to your thesis mostly
> because
> > > it
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > > sound pretty damned convincing.

> > > > > > > > > Perhaps if less "interesting times" where in place the
> > > Earnings
> > > > > > clues
> > > > > > > > > in the current data are:

> > > > > > > > > .78 to 1.03 earnings per share.