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
FCMs warn of regulatory gaps in crypto clearing
CFTC request for comment uncovers concerns over customer protection and unchecked advertising
UK clearing houses face tougher capital regime than EU peers
Ice resists BoE plan to move second skin in the game higher up capital stack, but members approve
ECB seeks capital clarity on Spire repacks
Dealers split between counterparty credit risk and market risk frameworks for repack RWAs
FSB chief defends global non-bank regulation drive
Schindler slams ‘misconception’ that regulators intend to impose standardised bank-like rules
Fed fractures post-SVB consensus on emergency liquidity
New supervisory principles support FHLB funding over discount window preparedness
Why UPIs could spell goodbye for OTC-Isins
Critics warn UK will miss opportunity to simplify transaction reporting if it spurns UPI
EC’s closing auction plan faces cool reception from markets
Participants say proposal for multiple EU equity closing auctions would split price formation
Fed pivots to material risk – but what is it, exactly?
Top US bank regulator will prioritise risks that matter most, but they could prove hard to pinpoint