Citigroup still affected by 'Dr Evil' bond strategy
NEW YORK – According to statistics from Bloomberg, nearly two years after Citigroup irritated regulators and bond market participants alike with its "Doctor Evil" bond trading strategy, the scandal is still hurting Citigroup shareholders.
According to the Bloomberg statistics, Citigroup arranged just 2.3% of the @155 billion ($196 billion) in debt sold by the governments since the trading strategy was launched on August 2, 2004. That's just a fifth of its market-leading 10.1% share in 2003, the data shows.
As a result, Citigroup has lost out on lucrative fees for handling sales of state assets – Citigroup is now 14th among advisers on European privatisations, down from third.
On government bond sales, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs have displaced the firm at the top.
In terms of share price, Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America Corp. now has a market value 2.7% less than Citigroup's $233 billion, compared with a gap of more than 50% three years ago. Citigroup was overtaken as the world's biggest lender by assets when Japan's Mitsubishi Tokyo Financial Group Inc. bought UFJ Holdings Inc. in September.
The UK's Financial Services Authority fined Citigroup £13.9 million in June 2005 as a result of the transaction, although it did not pursue action against individual traders.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Capital neutrality key to completing Basel III, says Quarles
Former Republican Fed vice-chair thinks Hill or Bowman could help revive stalled prudential rules
Review of 2024: as markets took a breather, firms switched focus
In the absence of major crises and rules deadlines, financial firms revamped strategy, services and practices
Dora flood pitches banks against vendors
Firms ask vendors for late addendums sometimes unrelated to resiliency, requiring renegotiation
Swiss report fingers Finma on Credit Suisse capital ratio
Parliament says bank would have breached minimum requirements in 2022 without regulatory filter
‘It’s not EU’: Do government bond spreads spell eurozone break-up?
Divergence between EGB yields is in the EU’s make-up; only a shared risk architecture can reunite them
CFTC weighs third-party risk rules for CCPs
Clearing houses could be required to formally identify and monitor critical vendors
Why there is no fence in effective regulatory relationships
A chief risk officer and former bank supervisor says regulators and regulated are on the same side
Snap! Derivatives reports decouple after Emir Refit shake-up
Counterparties find new rules have led to worse data quality, threatening regulators’ oversight of systemic risk