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
Don’t mention the rules: the fight against prediction market abuse
For the CFTC to regulate new venues effectively, it must first redefine insider trading
Can the US FRTB revamp make the IMA great again?
Banks are finally presented with a viable internal models framework under Basel III’s market risk rules
UK rethinking tougher capital rules for US bank subsidiaries
US endgame draft would trigger UK Basel III trap floor for foreign banks, but PRA is reviewing
EBA proposes drastic overhaul to supervisory data reporting
Revamp will cut back the number of datapoints and integrate overlapping reports
CFTC wants to regulate prediction markets. Is it up to the task?
Former officials echo state gambling authorities’ concerns over agency’s ability to police betting risks
EBA seeks to allay Simm divergence concerns
EU validator pledges to co-ordinate with global regulators, but retains ability to act alone “if needed”
FRTB models find salvation in US Basel III proposal
Changes to P&L attribution test and NMRFs make IMA viable for US banks, risk managers say
US blows the floors off Basel III
Barr criticises “downward deviations” in US rule; Bowman rejects “blind adherence” to global standards