|Bid||74.35 x 1000|
|Ask||0.00 x 1400|
|Day's Range||74.35 - 74.85|
|52 Week Range||48.42 - 76.28|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||1.81|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||9.91|
|Earnings Date||Jan 14, 2020|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||2.04 (2.75%)|
|1y Target Est||84.44|
Former Fed Governor Dan Tarullo said the repo-market turmoil seen in September raises some broad questions about the regulations put in place after the financial crisis.
Now that the U.S. economy is expanding less quickly, stocks with the fastest and most sustainable dividend growth are worth considering, according to a recent research note by UBS.
(Bloomberg) -- Oil prices sputtered after OPEC failed to impress traders with what appeared to be a cosmetic revision to output quotas.Futures were unchanged in New York after gyrating throughout the session, at one point reaching the highest since September. A key committee recommended in Vienna that the group cut output targets by 500,000 barrels a day. While crucial details have yet to emerge, the latest move seems to formalize the extra supply reductions the group has already been making for most of this year.“This is a meaningless agreement since it doesn’t change supply of oil in market,” said Michael Hiley, head of OTC energy trading with LPS Partners. “Sure, its not wildly bullish but its not wildly bearish either, so that’s why the market is moving up and down.”The committee convened by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies also agreed to leave condensates out of Russia’s quota from this month, Energy Minister Alexander Novak said in Vienna.Excluding condensate from the current deal would mean a new reference target that would exclude 1.4 million barrels a day of liquids, Citigroup Inc. analysts including Francesco Martoccia wrote in a note.West Texas Intermediate for January delivery settled unchanged at $58.43 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Still, the benchmark is set for the largest weekly gain since September.Brent for February settlement advanced 39 cents to $63.39 on the London-based ICE Futures Europe Exchange. The global benchmark crude traded at a $5.05 premium to WTI for the same month.\--With assistance from Alex Longley.To contact the reporter on this story: Sheela Tobben in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: David Marino at email@example.com, Mike Jeffers, Joe CarrollFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Citi Private Bank today released its Outlook report for 2020, titled, "Staying Positive in a Negative (Yielding) World." The twice-yearly publication provides in-depth insights into the global economy and financial markets for the coming year, and highlights important multi-year investment themes for client portfolios.
Art sales and auctions have been setting records, which could be another sign of the wealth gap, according to a Citi report
India’s central bank left its benchmark interest rate unchanged on Thursday as policymakers grapple with the need to boost a slowing economy while curbing a rise in inflation that risks spurring social unrest.
JPMorgan Chase & Co began internal discussions that would lead to immunity from prosecution over a troubled Australian capital raising two years before two rivals were charged with criminal cartel behaviour, a court heard on Thursday. A former JPMorgan banker gave the timeline as the first witness to testify in a legal battle that is being closely watched by investment bankers around the world because it may change the way they are permitted to conduct capital raising. JPMorgan, Citigroup Inc and Deutsche Bank AG worked on a A$2.5 billion ($1.70 billion) stock issue for Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (ANZ) in August 2015.
(Bloomberg) -- Starbucks Corp., for the first time, is disclosing how much less women at the coffee chain earn than men in the U.S.: zero dollars. That’s in contrast to the nation’s workforce overall, in which women make on average 19% less than men. Starbucks also says it has no racial pay gap.Starbucks joins Citigroup Inc. in reporting figures for median pay, a rarity among U.S. companies, which are not required to release diversity data publicly. The U.K. has required organizations to report such data for workers since 2018. There, women at Starbucks make 5% less than men. Globally, its female employees make 98.3% of what men do.“Starbucks has been focused on diversity and equity for a long time, and you can see it in their numbers,” said Natasha Lamb, managing partner at Arjuna Capital, which pressures companies to reveal pay data for greater gender equality. “But having little to no adjusted or unadjusted gender pay gaps really sets them apart.”Starbucks’ parity shows not only that women get “equal pay for equal work” but also that they have achieved as many high-paying roles as men.“Pay equity has long been a priority at Starbucks,” said Bailey Adkins, a spokesperson for the chain. “We’ve done serious work to ensure women and men are compensated fairly.”Pressured by Arjuna, some of the biggest banks and tech companies have disclosed the pay gap between men and women doing the same work—often referred to as pay equity. Companies have resisted sharing their median pay gaps, which could be embarrassing. After Citigroup reported that women at the bank earn 29% less than men, its peers chose not to follow. In the U.S., the bank also pays people of color 7% less than their white co-workers.On Wednesday, Microsoft Corp.’s shareholders voted down a measure calling for median pay disclosure. Arjuna says it will file resolutions at more than a dozen technology, financial and retail companies for the 2020 proxy season. It withdrew its proposal from Starbucks.\--With assistance from Leslie Patton.To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Green in Southfield, Michigan at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Rebecca Greenfield at email@example.com, Philip GrayFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Citi (NYSE:C) has appointed electronic trading platform provider Rapid Addition as one of its core FIX platform partners for currency trading, based on the company’s latency performance and scalability to meet business requirements. Citi has integrated the Rapid Addition FIX engine, as well as the Rapid Addition Hub platform, in to its new pricing technology for spot foreign exchange transactions, which clients can connect to in co-locations across London, Tokyo, New York, and Singapore. The Rapid Addition FIX engine delivers market-leading speed for low latency trading, while the Rapid Addition Hub platform delivers scalability in client on-boarding and configuration.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- As part of Europe’s promise to become the first “climate-neutral” continent by 2050, the region is emerging as a leader in creating standards for green investments. But the push to get its banks to back sustainable assets needs careful scrutiny.At the core of the European Union’s project is the creation of a single set of definitions to determine what economic activities are sustainable and should count as green. To take just one example, for a transport project to be labeled green the passenger trains would have to have no direct emissions or they must be below a certain threshold. The initial aim is for these classifications to form the basis for framing green bond issues, but they will go beyond that: They might well shape government spending and central bank stimulus programs.In the world of finance, Brussels is especially eager to encourage green loans as well as bonds. The European Commission is examining whether banks should be encouraged to fund sustainable industries via a potential softening of the EU’s rules on capital charges on their lending. In Europe, where businesses use bank credit (rather than bond and stock markets) for much of their financing, addressing where these loans go will be critical in tackling global warming.But anything that encourages European banks to increase their risky lending will have industry regulators fretting, and rightly so. The wounds of the financial and sovereign debt crises are still fresh.Banks have, of course, become more resilient to shocks in recent years, By some metrics Europe’s lenders have more than doubled the capital they hold against their assets, when the latter are weighted by their riskiness. But negative interest rates, sluggish economic growth and the need to spend on technology mean profitability is still lackluster.Europe’s bankers are already chasing risky lending to try to boost returns, the European Banking Authority warned last week. This explains a headlong rush into commercial real estate, small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) and consumer credit.So it’s no surprise that the idea of setting aside less capital for green loans is a red flag for supervisors. While it might improve short-term returns, it could stoke the return of excessive leverage. “Any capital relief for green assets must be based on clear evidence that they are less risky than non-green assets,” Andrea Enria, Europe’s chief banking regulator said last month.Valdis Dombrovskis, a vice-president at the Commission, favors a similar mechanism for lowering capital charges on green loans as is used for lending to SMEs. Recent data show such relief does spur credit expansion. Bank lending to smaller companies has increased by more than 20% since 2014, while loans to large companies have dropped 9%, according to EBA figures.But lending to SMEs is a risky endeavor, while banks’ vulnerability has yet to be tested by a sharp economic downturn. Incentives for green loans would add another source of potential weakness by adding exposure to new types of assets.And banks cannot yet be fully trusted in how they judge the riskiness of their assets, which isn’t subject to external audit. Rules drafted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision will tackle some of this by limiting how far lenders can reduce their capital needs by using their own internal models, but they won’t be implemented fully until 2027.Lenders’ reporting of metrics including capital adequacy have shown worrying signs of fragility recently. In Britain, regulators found that Citigroup Inc. underestimated its risk-weighted assets in part because of governance failings, leading to a $57 million fine. The U.K. has now asked all deposit-taking institutions for details of any interpretations in their numbers and how they oversee reporting.While the climate emergency is naturally at the top of the EU’s agenda, loosening rules for the region’s lenders should not be done lightly. A stable financial system is essential too for a transition to a greener economy. To contact the author of this story: Elisa Martinuzzi at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Elisa Martinuzzi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering finance. She is a former managing editor for European finance at Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Financial stocks suffered a broad selloff in morning trading Tuesday, as trade-war fears sent the 10-year Treasury yield toward the biggest decline in over three years. The SPDR Financial Select Sector ETF slid 2.0%, with 65 of 67 equity components losing ground. That financial ETF (XLF) was the weakest of the ETFs tracking the S&P 500's 11 key sectors. The S&P 500 dropped 1.2%. Among the XLF's most active components, shares of Bank of America Corp. lost 2.5%, Citigroup Inc. shed 2.5%, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. gave up 2.1%, Wells Fargo & Co. dropped 2.5% and Morgan Stanley declined 3.1%. The 10-year Treasury yield fell 13.2 basis points (0.132 percentage points) to 1.704%, putting it on track for the biggest one-day basis-point decline since it fell 16.0 basis points on June 24, 2016, according to FactSet data. The yield decline comes after President Donald Trump said it might be better to hold off a trade deal with China until after the presidential election. Lower long-term rates can hurt bank earnings, as that could cause the spread between what banks earn from funding longer-term assets, such as loans, with short-term liabilities.
Investing.com – Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX) needs to up its subscription prices in order to justify its current valuation, which is running too hot, Citigroup (NYSE:C) said as it cut its outlook on the streaming-media giant.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Three years ago Tidjane Thiam stirred hopes that the banking industry was looking at new ways to tackle its bloated cost base. The chief executive officer of Credit Suisse Group AG said his company was working on a common platform with another lender to share expenses.The project has made little visible progress since then, and it’s not because the pressure on banks to become more efficient has eased; there’s a deeper resistance at play here to the notion of combining or outsourcing certain functions. Neither is Thiam’s false start the exception. Citigroup Inc. and Clearstream Banking SA announced a shared settlement and custody system in 2016, but UBS Group AG is the only other bank to have joined.Trying to share costs with your rivals rivals does present difficulties, but they shouldn’t be insurmountable. For a sector whose revenue outlook and profitability is deteriorating, the possible gains from outsourcing aren’t trivial, as was highlighted in a recent report from the management consultancy McKinsey & Co.Almost half of banks’ costs come from doing stuff that doesn’t set them apart from their competitors, McKinsey finds. Much like the car industry in the 1990s, the consultants argue that banks could outsource much of their “production” to third parties. Trade processing, collateral management and “know-your-customer” functions are just some of the things that could be farmed out.While one should bear in mind that consultants are always eager to promote outsourcing projects, seeing as it’s a service they offer, the financial benefits for the industry are tempting: Lenders could see their cost-to-income ratios improve by 4 percentage points and their return on equity (a key measure of profitability) could increase by as much as 1 percentage point, according to McKinsey. The industry’s average ROE has plateaued at about 10.5%.In Europe especially, where bank valuations are much lower than during the 1990s, every penny counts. So why have bankers not pushed harder on sharing costs?There are some practical reasons. Because financial services are exempt largely from value-added tax, they wouldn’t be able to recover the VAT they’d pay on outsourced services. That could offset some efficiency gains and potentially make some shared services less appealing.Then there are the regulatory concerns and demands. As much as 12% of a bank’s costs are soaked up by anti-money laundering processes and the monitoring of customers, making it a possibly fruitful area for cost savings. But sharing these processes with other banks wouldn’t shelter a lender from its legal duties. If anything went wrong, the responsibility would still lie with the individual bank. As such, it would still feel beholden to check this information even if it’s held on a common platform.That said, a raft of money-laundering scandals in Europe — and the hefty fines that will almost certainly follow — have added a sense of urgency. Six Nordic banks are creating a joint company to handle “know-your-customer” data.Generally, the biggest obstacle to shared services is getting buy-in from banks, with the efficiency gains often not deemed enough to offset the loss of control and flexibility.Until a year ago, executives were counting instead on a possible increase in interest rates to improve revenue. And for wholesale banks, saving a little here and there through complicated outsourcing projects is less attractive than trying to push their bankers to win a big-ticket initial public offering or a merger that can pay tens of millions in fees.But the industry outlook — especially in Europe — has become sufficiently grim to warrant a rethink. More than one-third of the world’s banks are sub-scale, according to McKinsey, while their business models are broken and they may have no option but to sell themselves in an economic downturn. With such a background, any chance to cut expenses shouldn’t be ignored.“Some banks would rather die than cooperate,” one senior bank executive told me recently. Too often they’re not willing to give up autonomy or write off legacy assets. While technology advances should make sharing easier, a round of banking M&A may come sooner than a reckoning on costs.To contact the author of this story: Elisa Martinuzzi at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Elisa Martinuzzi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering finance. She is a former managing editor for European finance at Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
from the Bank of England this week was a sobering reminder that, more than 10 years on from the depths of the financial crisis, conduct risk is still very costly for Wall Street. Such rules were drawn up to ensure that banks could keep trading through the most severe of market crashes. Part of the problem identified by the BoE was that Citigroup relied on teams in Budapest and Mumbai, which often manually input data into detailed reports.
Citigroup (C) penalized with 43.9 million pounds ($57 million) by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) for inaccurate reporting to regulators related to its capital and liquidity levels for years.
FDIC-insured commercial banks and savings institutions' Q3 earnings negatively impacted by higher provisions and expenses, partly offset by elevated net operating revenues and loan growth.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- In the aftermath of the financial crisis, we’ve become accustomed to banks being slapped with sanctions running into the billions. So at the equivalent of $57 million, Citigroup Inc.’s new fine for reporting failures could well go unnoticed. That would be a mistake.The third-largest U.S. bank, with assets in excess of $2 trillion, inaccurately reported its capital and liquidity in the U.K. because of dysfunctional systems, governance and controls, the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority said this week. This is not what Britain expects of a systemically important bank, the PRA added, explaining why it was imposing a record fine.While the Wall Street giant’s measures of financial strength remained above the U.K.’s regulatory requirements during the four years in question, that’s little comfort given the magnitude of the flaws and the bank’s inadequate oversight.If Citi’s key financial figures can be repeatedly off the mark, what else might they be getting wrong? As the regulator noted in its 44-page assessment of how the errors came about, “firms that do not produce timely, complete and accurate data during periods of relative stability are less likely to produce it under stress.”The U.K. is Citi’s biggest market outside the U.S., accounting for about 16% of its total assets and about 9% of revenue; its trading activities there run across cash and derivatives markets. The securities unit is one of Europe’s biggest investment banks on a standalone basis.Because of the errors, which happened between June 2014 and Dec. 2018, the biggest of Citi’s three British entities at one point was reporting a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 11.8% when it should have been 10.3%. While the ratio was at 11% when allowing for differing interpretations of how to calculate risk-weighted assets, this was still a material divergence.In October 2016, the same unit (Citi’s U.K. broker dealer) informed the regulator that between October 2015 and June 2016 it had misreported its liquidity coverage ratio by a whopping 47%. While the figure was actually better than the bank had reported, in some months the bank’s short-term ability to fund potential outflows was significantly worse than first reported.At the root of the mistakes were loose controls which failed to meet the bank’s requirements, even though internal red flags were raised. Reports, which should have been closely monitored, were often prepared manually by teams in Mumbai and Budapest and the bank used the wrong currency for settling some positions.Most alarming, the bank’s top executives and governance committees had a limited understanding of the reporting requirements and which senior managers were responsible.In fairness, the bank stressed that it had “cooperated fully with the PRA throughout the process, and in 2019 a leading independent accountancy and audit firm confirmed that Citi had remediated the material issues identified.” By working with the regulator the lender qualified for a 30% rebate on the penalty.But the cascade of errors under seemingly careless management points to a cavalier attitude in global finance that hasn’t been fixed entirely. Banks’ books are far from being as safe as houses.To contact the author of this story: Elisa Martinuzzi at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Elisa Martinuzzi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering finance. She is a former managing editor for European finance at Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.