http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/Citibank-shutting-Philadelphia-.html
Speaking of Citibank , how many recall the details of their bailout ?
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/tom-adams-citigroup-real-reason-need-volcker-rule.html
Citibank pulling out of Philadelphia
(AP Photo / Mark Lennihan) AP
Citibank, the global Manhattan-based loan and investment company, is shutting its remaining Philadelphia branches -- five in Center City, one each in Germantown, Northeast Philadelphia and Bala Cynwyd -- and offices in Cherry Hill and Lawrenceville, NJ, and on US 202 north of Wilmington, according to letters sent to local customers this week.
They're all closing, confirms Citi spokesman Andrew Brent, of the Philadelphia branches. The bank's nearest surviving location will be in Woodbridge, N.J., in metro New York, according to the letter. Citi shut nine suburban Philadelphia offices, some in choice locations and built at a cost of several million dollars each, last year.
The shutdown reverses rapid expansion before the 2008 financial crisis, when Citi was among the New York banks seeking to boost its municipal, business and consumer lending and money management in the region after Philadelphia's major banks sold to out-of-town companies in the 1980s and 1990s. Citi has lately been shutting branches as more Americans bank online, and cutting back physical offices in markets where it's not a dominant lender or depository.
ALSO from spokesman Brent: “Philadelphia remains an important market for Citi. We maintain several key businesses including municipal finance, equities, Commercial Banking and Private Banking" offices in the city, and count "some of Philadelphia's largest employers, middle market businesses, local affordable housing developments, and the Philadelphia School District" as contractors, and want to expand these businesses.
Brent said Citi also wants to keep lending money for "neighborhood economic development projects, programs designed to help low-income public students enroll in college, and mortgage foreclosure prevention assistance.”They're all closing, confirms Citi spokesman Andrew Brent, of the Philadelphia branches. The bank's nearest surviving location will be in Woodbridge, N.J., in metro New York, according to the letter. Citi shut nine suburban Philadelphia offices, some in choice locations and built at a cost of several million dollars each, last year.
The shutdown reverses rapid expansion before the 2008 financial crisis, when Citi was among the New York banks seeking to boost its municipal, business and consumer lending and money management in the region after Philadelphia's major banks sold to out-of-town companies in the 1980s and 1990s. Citi has lately been shutting branches as more Americans bank online, and cutting back physical offices in markets where it's not a dominant lender or depository.
ALSO from spokesman Brent: “Philadelphia remains an important market for Citi. We maintain several key businesses including municipal finance, equities, Commercial Banking and Private Banking" offices in the city, and count "some of Philadelphia's largest employers, middle market businesses, local affordable housing developments, and the Philadelphia School District" as contractors, and want to expand these businesses.
Speaking of Citibank , how many recall the details of their bailout ?
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/tom-adams-citigroup-real-reason-need-volcker-rule.html
Tom Adams: Citigroup is the Real Reason We Need the Volcker Rule
Posted on by
By Tom Adams, who spent over 20 years in the securitization business and now works as an attorney and consultant and expert witness on MBS, CDO and securitization related issues. Jointly posted with mathbabe
Volcker Rule
Last week, the rules for the Volcker Rule – that provision of the Dodd-Frank Legislation that was intended to prevent (reduce?) proprietary trading by banks – were finalized. As a consequence, there has been a lot of chatter among financial types around the internet about what the rule does and doesn’t do and how it is good or bad, etc. Much of the conversation falls into the category of noise and distraction about unintended consequences, impacts on liquidity and broad views of regulatory effectiveness.
Citigroup
I call it noise, because in my view the real purpose of the Volcker Rule is to prevent another Citigroup bailout and therefore the measure of its effectiveness is whether the rule would accomplish this.
As you may recall, Citigroup required the largest bailout in government history in 2008, going back to the government well for more bailout funds several times. The source of Citigroup’s pain was almost entirely due to its massive investment in the ABS CDO machine. Of course, at the time of Citi’s bailout, there was a lot of noise about the potential financial system collapse and the risk posed by numerous other banks and institutions, so Citi as the main target of the TARP bailout, and ABS CDOs as the main cause of Citi’s pain, often gets lost in the folds of history.
The CDO Market
In the years leading up to the financial crisis, Citi was an active underwriter for CDO’s backed by mortgage backed securities. Selling these securities was a lucrative business for Citi and other banks – far more lucrative than the selling of the underlying MBS. The hard part of selling was finding someone to take the highest risk piece (called the equity) of the CDO, but that problem got solved when Magnetar and other hedge funds came along with their ingenious shorting scheme.
The next hardest part was finding someone to take the risk of the very large senior class of the CDO, often known as the super-senior tranche (it was so named because it was enhanced at levels above that needed for a AAA rating).
For a time, Citi relied on a few overseas buyers and some insurance companies – like AIG and monoline bond insurers – to take on that risk. In addition, the MBS market became heavily reliant upon CDOs to buy up the lower rated bonds from MBS securitizations.
As the frenzy of MBS selling escalated, though, the number of parties willing to take on the super-seniors was unable to match the volume of CDOs being created (AIG, for instance, pulled back from insuring the bonds in 2006). Undeterred, Citi began to take down the super-senior bonds from the deals they were selling and holding them as “investments” which required very little capital because they were AAA.
This approach enabled Citi to continue the vey lucrative business of selling CDOs (to themselves!), which also enhanced their ability to create and sell MBS (to their CDOs), which enabled Citi to keep the music playing and the dance going, to paraphrase their then CEO Chuck Prince.
The CDO music stopped in July, 2007 with the rating agency downgrades of hundreds of the MBS bonds underlying the CDOs that had been created over the prior 24 months. MBS and CDO issuance effectively shut down the following month and remained shut throughout the crisis. The value of CDOs almost immediately began to plummet, leading to large mark-to-market losses for the parties that insured CDOs, such as Ambac and MBIA.
Citi managed to ignore the full extent of the declines in the value of the CDOs for nearly a year, until AIG ran into its troubles (itself a result of the mark-to-market declines in the values of its CDOs). When, in the fall of 2008, Citi finally fessed up to the problems it was facing, it turned out it was holding super-senior CDOs with a face value of about $150 billion which were now worth substantially less.
How much less? The market opinion at the time was probably around 10-20 cents on the dollar. Some of that value recovered in the last two years, but the bonds were considered fairly worthless for several years. Citi’s difficulty in determining exactly how little the CDOs were worth and how many they held was the primary reason for the repeated requests for additional bailout money.
Citi’s Bailout is Everyone’s Bailout
The Citi bailout was a huge embarrassment for the company and the regulators that oversaw the company (including the Federal Reserve) for failing to prevent such a massive aid package. Some effort was made, at the time TARP money was distributed, to obscure Citi’s central role in the need for TARP and the panic the potential for a Citi failure was causing in the market and at the Treasury Department (see for example this story and the SIGTARP report). By any decent measure, Citi should have been broken up after this fiasco, but at least some effort should be made from a large bank ever needing such a bailout again, right?
Volcker’s Rule is Citi’s Rule
So the test for whether the Volcker Rule is effective is fairly simple: will it prevent Citi, or some other large institution, from getting in this situation again? The rule is relatively complex and armies of lawyers are dissecting it for ways to arbitrage its words as we speak.
However, some evidence has emerged that the Volcker Rule would be effective in preventing another Citi fiasco. While the bulk of the rules don’t become effective until 2015, banks are required to move all “covered assets” from held to maturity to held for sale, which requires them to move the assets to a fair market valuation from… whatever they were using before.
Just this week, for example, Zions Bank announced that they were taking a substantial impairment because of that rule and moving a big chunk of CDOs (trust preferred securities, or TRUPS, were the underlying asset, although the determination would apparently apply to all CDOs) to fair market accounting from… whatever valuation they were using previously (not fair market? [Yves here: see post on Zions for details]).
Here’s the key point. Had Citi been forced to do this as they acquired their CDOs, there is a decent chance they would have run into CDO capacity problems much sooner – they may not have been able to rely on the AAA ratings, they might have had to sell off some of the bonds before the market imploded, and they might have had to justify their valuations with actual data rather than self-serving models.
As a secondary consequence, they probably would have had to stop buying and originating mortgage loans and buying and selling MBS, because they wouldn’t have been able to help create CDOs to dump them into.
Given the size of Citi’s CDO portfolio, and the leverage that those CDOs had as it relates to underlying mortgage loans (one $1 billion CDO was backed by MBS from about $10 billion mortgages, $150 billion of CDOs would have been backed by MBS from about $1.5 trillion of mortgage loans, theoretically), if Citi had slowed their buying of CDOs, it might have had a substantial cooling effect on the mortgage market before the crisis hit.
No comments:
Post a Comment