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.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
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. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Prop shops recoil from EU’s ‘ill-fitting’ capital regime
Large proprietary trading firms complain they are subject to hand-me-down rules originally designed for banks
Revealed: the three EU banks applying for IMA approval
BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank and Intesa Sanpaolo ask ECB to use internal models for FRTB
FCA presses UK non-banks to put their affairs in order
Greater scrutiny of wind-down plans by regulator could alter capital and liquidity requirements
Industry calls for major rethink of Basel III rules
Isda AGM: Divergence on implementation suggests rules could be flawed, bankers say
Saudi Arabia poised to become clean netting jurisdiction
Isda AGM: Netting regulation awaiting final approvals from regulators
Japanese megabanks shun internal models as FRTB bites
Isda AGM: All in-scope banks opt for standardised approach to market risk; Nomura eyes IMA in 2025
CFTC chair backs easing of G-Sib surcharge in Basel endgame
Isda AGM: Fed’s proposed surcharge changes could hike client clearing cost by 80%
UK investment firms feeling the heat on prudential rules
Signs firms are falling behind FCA’s expectations on wind-down and liquidity risk management