corbat

2

Elissabat, otherwise known by her stage name Veronica Von Vamp, is Draculaura’s cousin and the most famous actress in Clawlos. Since she suffers from severe stage fright, she makes a lot of effort to study and prepare for her roles and give the best performance possible. Her Crobat, Barton, loves to perform in shows with her and is always trying to show off in front of Draculaura’s Gardevoir.

youtube

Sorry Michael Corbat, Citi’s 2014 Was Anything But Boring

Bloomberg’s Erik Schatzker and Michael Moore discuss Citi’s 2014, a year that was anything but boring. They speak on “Street Smart.”

ONE TOUGH IRISHMAN

Mike O'Neill. former EVP of Continental Illinois, Former EVP for finance of Bank of America, former CEO of Bank of Hawaii and (briefly) Barclays, now Chairman of Citigroup, expert in Grand Masters and fixer of banks who begins with the simple credo, “Stop doing the stupid things.”  Oh yeah, and about as tough and straight an Irishman as you will ever meet.

The only story today is the change of management at Citigroup.  Vikrim Pandit resigned unexpectedly this morning (the understatement of the year) to be replaced by Michael Corbat, a long-time Citi veteran.  90% of the talking heads are speculating as to why and how this happened, not to mention the timing which was just after the release of 3rd quarter numbers which, if one could decipher them looked exceptionally good.  ///////////////  Took a short break to listen into the analysts call, and both O'Neill and Corbat emphasized that there was nothing more to Pandit’s resignation that his feeling that the time had come.  I suspect that that is correct but I’m also pretty sure that there was general agreement among the board as to that point after a considerable period of discussion (months not days)  that was not particularly a secret if some of the talking heads had expressed any interest.

O'Neill was among a new group of directors elected about three years ago, and the common theme was that their backgrounds were far more in commercial banking than was Mr Pandit’s.  When O'Neill was elected Chairman to succeed Richard Parsons, a schmoozer at best and a disaster at worst, the writing was pretty much on the wall as to the strategic choices which loomed before the board and most importantly, who would be best qualified to execute the direction and course the institution would take over the coming years.  Frankly, I never thought that between O'Neill and Pandit, if it came to it, that who would win nor am I the least bit surprised as to the election of Corbat.  In the past few years the most impressive exercise throughout the entire organization was the ridding of over $650 billion in non-core assets, (read, “crap”) transforming a massively under capitalized institution into one of the strongest, from a capital standpoint, in the country.  O'Neill was the director charged with the oversight in that process and Corbat was his guy.  It gets you noticed.  Moreover, Corbat has had broad experience in the commercial side of the bank, both domestically and internationally, which is clearly the strategic direction the bank has chosen.  Not surprisingly, this experience mirrors O'Neill’s precisely.  As I have said in past pieces that I am sure you remember reading, Citi is the only truly international bank we have and it is there I suspect, on the commercial side that it’s future success is to be found.

None of this is to say that Vikrim Pandit was a bad guy or a bad CEO.  He is just not the CEO for this point in time for one of the great financial institutions in history.  In addition, he is too linked to the past calamities, whether fairly or not, to have remained effective.  But make no mistake, this was a board room coup; a gentle one perhaps but one none-the-less organized by one tough Irishman.  I think I might buy a few shares.

Kevin Spacey is the king of Davos

Leo DiCaprio grabbed headlines at the World Economic Forum when he won a Crystal Award, and Bono was seen chatting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the Swiss summit. But behind the scenes, we hear Kevin Spacey, leader of the Free World on “House of Cards,” has been the de facto mayor of Davos, Switzerland.

Spacey — who also met with Trudeau, along with Leo — popped into Anthony Scaramucci’s annual “Wine Forum” at the Hotel Europe’s Piano Bar, where the elite meet after hours.

A spy said that at the SkyBridge Capital founder’s bash, Spacey was schmoozing with Third Point’s Daniel Loeb, Goldman Sachs’ No. 2 Gary Cohn, Google’s Eric Schmidt, Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat, “Billions” co-creator Andrew Ross Sorkin and Bloomberg Television morning anchor Stephanie Ruhle.

We’re told “Mr. Spacey then climbed up on the piano in the packed room of delegates, pledged his love for the Davos experience, encouraged people to talk to him on the street, thanked them for watching ‘House of Cards,’ then serenaded the room.”

Titan Corporation #airsoft #airsoftsrbija #airsoftserbia #airsoftinternational #worldairsoft #airsoftgun #corbat #tactical #tacticool #tacticalgear #everydaytactical #gun #guns #milsim #military #militarylife #militarymuscle #action #mountain by _hustler._
Leave a comment or reach out using the link below
https://www.instagram.com/p/BBkZ-NyM60I/

Everybody wants muscles, but no one is willing to lift the heavy weights.
http://www.amazon.com/?tag=machomilitarymusc-20

The Chinese Economy Is Sinking, Not Transitioning
By : Zero Hedge Published on : 1/30/2016 9:55:00 PM

Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

It makes for quite the juxtaposition, though perhaps not so jarring given that global banks are still enormous and disparate operations. On the one hand, Citigroup’s CEO was eminently confident from within the confines of Davos and the status quo:

The market is “adjusting” to a series of headwinds that can be overcome, Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat said Thursday, a day after theS&P 500 fell to its lowest level in nearly two years.

“We view what’s going on really as more a repricing than any big fundamental shift,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

The question is who is the “we” to which he is referring? It was just a year ago that no bank would even contemplate the possibility of recession entering Janet Yellen’s perfect year, especially as it was setup by “unquestionable” growth in the middle of 2014 (best jobs market in decades). This January, however, while Citi’s CEO downplays recent turmoil, the staff inside his very own bank is thinking very much otherwise:

The global economy is on the brink of a recession, with central bank stimulus less forthcoming and growth weakened by the slowdown in China, Citigroup warned on Thursday.

The bank cut its 2016 global growth forecast to 2.7 percent from 2.8 percent and slashed its outlook for the U.S., U.K. and Canada, plus several emerging markets including Russia, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico. [emphasis added]

That’s a lot of slashing in order to be so sanguine. I don’t agree with the premise, namely that this is all or even mostly due to China (the Chinese sell their industrial production to whom?), but the condition of the Chinese economy offers more universal interpretations upon these kinds of circumstances. That starts with the idea that China is slowing but within a more cheering transition to consumer rather than investment-led activity and margins. It is this idea that manufacturing and production matter, but not nearly as much as they used to and thus not enough to make a full recessionary difference right now.

After some minor encouragement in December, industrial factors in January have turned (yet again) to the depressively concerning. Today it was industrial profits.

Profits earned by Chinese industrial firms in December fell 4.7 percent from a year earlier, the seventh straight month of declines, as the slowing economy hits sales and forces many companies to cut prices to win business.

The weak performance is bound to spark fresh concerns about investment cuts, job losses and bad loans in the world’s second-largest economy, and could put more pressure on China’s stock markets, which have been pummelled [sic] to 14-month lows.

China’s stock market is a small, relative matter; the more troubling imbalances lie and remain elsewhere. This change in production profitability is concerning on three fronts; first in terms of where China’s economy, even in just industry, might actually be at right now. GDP says slowing but rather steady; these figures and many others suggest quite the opposite.

China saw annual industrial ¬profits fall for the first time in more than a decade, prompting calls for strong stimulus to boost growth, even as Premier Li Keqiang on Wednesday vowed to cut loans to zombie firms and ¬increase financial support for high-tech industries.

The gloomy figures add to the economy’s grim start to the year, coming amid growing panic over the depreciation of the yuan and state media reports on short sellers’ “attacks” in manipulating the market for the renminbi and other Asian currencies.

“For the first time in more than a decade” is becoming a consistent qualifier for these sorts of economic indications. A week ago, China reported electrical output and steel production now at just such historical comparison:

China’s output of electric power and steel fell for the first time in decades in 2015, while coal production dropped for a second year in row, illustrating how a slowing economy and shift to consumer-led growth is hurting industrial consumers.

China’s economy grew at its weakest pace in a quarter of a century in 2015 and efforts to restructure have not only slashed demand but also exposed massive overcapacity in industrial sectors such as coal, steel and power.

Despite these dire results and measurements, there is still this tug of “consumer-led transition” that, as noted in the quote above, remains as a bulwark optimistic sentiment. It can be distilled as if an economy operates in completely discrete and replaceable fashion; as if when industry struggles then services will just continue on that much better until industry no longer matters at all; and if industry really, really struggles, consumption and the service economy should only factor a minor nuisance being so separated. There are no such Chinese walls (pun intended) within an economic system (which extends globally).

That brings up the second contradiction noted by persistently decreasing industrial activity in China (and elsewhere). To this point, despite production and output cuts (and to capex and capacity growth) there has yet to be the major transition to across-the-board resource reduction, including and especially labor. In other words, consumption in China might not look as bad as production but only because there are time lags and frictions (as economists call them) that forestall synchronization even in these downward recessionary legs. Once production stalls and contracts long enough, especially in profitability terms, businesses will eventually seek to harmonize production with their resources – the very bad news of total cutbacks, including and especially pay and then labor in full.

To wit:

China’s business confidence and recruitment activity slipped to record lows in January, a survey showed, adding to signs of weakness in the world’s second-largest economy that could prod policymakers to roll out more support measures…

The staffing index fell to 50.3 in January, near the 50 no-change mark, from 50.8 in December, hitting its lowest since the survey began, as businesses have become more hesitant to recruit as economic activity weakens, the survey showed.

And:

The slowdown in the Chinese economy has spread its tentacles to China’s white-collar workers who have received fewer year-end bonuses, according to a survey carried out by a recruitment company.

The study by Zhaopin, a Beijing-based recruitment website, said 66 per cent of the 10,615 white-collar workers polled had not received, or expected, a year-end bonus.

That compares with the 61.2 per cent who gave the same answer when polled the previous year.

About 14 per cent of the people surveyed did get a bonus for 2015.

The average paid out was over 10,000 yuan (HK$12,000), nearly 3,000 yuan down from 2014, the survey showed. Workers were polled in 32 cities across China.

The production decay is only, perhaps, just now starting to impact the wider Chinese economy. It counts not just in resource management and eventual capitulation on those terms, but also financial terms – precisely the problem with China’s “outflows.” This is the third worrisome notice from China’s industrial profitability, namely that defaults or at least perceptions of default risk will only exacerbate an already tenuous position for China’s financial networks; especially its “dollar” short.

As the eurodollar standard built China in what looked like “hot money” inflows, that created lending formation and chained liabilities predicated on China being China forever; not China placing all its hopes and dreams on an unproven and hardly-detected consumer transition (that wasn’t really specified until economists started to belatedly recognize “something” was wrong with industry where they were sure nothing ever could be wrong). There are enormous financial implications in the slowdown as it reaches unknowable trigger points, some of which we have undoubtedly already witnessed. If you are a “dollar” provider into China’s banks, as NPL’s rise with this production massacre you are not going to remain statically attached while it all seems to get worse and worse (especially as central bankers and “experts” continue to protest there isn’t anything wrong in the first place that temporary tweaks won’t alleviate).

External image

Economics becomes finance, and finance only furthers those negative economics. Financial distress in and of China both confirms the onrushing economic disaster as it was, while suggesting, because financial imbalance has not yet relented, not even close, much more to come.

Our three parts then sum to: China’s industry persists at only getting worse even though it has already reverted to a state not seen in a decade or more; consumer appearances may seem generally optimistic despite all that but only because industrial activity has yet to fully make adjustments through resources and labor; and financial trends are likely already at the stage of self-reinforcement within and without. You can see why China’s problems might trouble Citi’s economists and staff researchers in a way that perhaps the bank’s CEO might rather gloss over and around.

“Our” problem is that these trends and analytics are not just for and of China. There are no discrete pockets of fortified economic resolve with which to withstand a global “manufacturing recession.” There are only interconnections between individual economic circumstances that are augmented, amplified and affected by reflexivity in financial markets and conditions. That Citigroup is now recognizing this as a very real possibility, in sharp contrast to last January’s “transitory” commandment, shows how truly far along the economic and financial disease has infiltrated – globally. After all, China’s vast industrial might was built through eurodollars to service “global consumers”, of which Americans account for the bulk; upward as well as downward.

External image









The Chinese Economy Is Sinking, Not Transitioning

Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

It makes for quite the juxtaposition, though perhaps not so jarring given that global banks are still enormous and disparate operations. On the one hand, Citigroup’s CEO was eminently confident from within the confines of Davos and the status quo:

The market is “adjusting” to a series of headwinds that can be overcome, Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat said Thursday, a day after theS&P 500 fell to its lowest level in nearly two years.

“We view what’s going on really as more a repricing than any big fundamental shift,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

The question is who is the “we” to which he is referring? It was just a year ago that no bank would even contemplate the possibility of recession entering Janet Yellen’s perfect year, especially as it was setup by “unquestionable” growth in the middle of 2014 (best jobs market in decades). This January, however, while Citi’s CEO downplays recent turmoil, the staff inside his very own bank is thinking very much otherwise:

The global economy is on the brink of a recession, with central bank stimulus less forthcoming and growth weakened by the slowdown in China, Citigroup warned on Thursday.

The bank cut its 2016 global growth forecast to 2.7 percent from 2.8 percent and slashed its outlook for the U.S., U.K. and Canada, plus several emerging markets including Russia, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico. [emphasis added]

That’s a lot of slashing in order to be so sanguine. I don’t agree with the premise, namely that this is all or even mostly due to China (the Chinese sell their industrial production to whom?), but the condition of the Chinese economy offers more universal interpretations upon these kinds of circumstances. That starts with the idea that China is slowing but within a more cheering transition to consumer rather than investment-led activity and margins. It is this idea that manufacturing and production matter, but not nearly as much as they used to and thus not enough to make a full recessionary difference right now.

After some minor encouragement in December, industrial factors in January have turned (yet again) to the depressively concerning. Today it was industrial profits.

Profits earned by Chinese industrial firms in December fell 4.7 percent from a year earlier, the seventh straight month of declines, as the slowing economy hits sales and forces many companies to cut prices to win business.

The weak performance is bound to spark fresh concerns about investment cuts, job losses and bad loans in the world’s second-largest economy, and could put more pressure on China’s stock markets, which have been pummelled [sic] to 14-month lows.

China’s stock market is a small, relative matter; the more troubling imbalances lie and remain elsewhere. This change in production profitability is concerning on three fronts; first in terms of where China’s economy, even in just industry, might actually be at right now. GDP says slowing but rather steady; these figures and many others suggest quite the opposite.

China saw annual industrial ¬profits fall for the first time in more than a decade, prompting calls for strong stimulus to boost growth, even as Premier Li Keqiang on Wednesday vowed to cut loans to zombie firms and ¬increase financial support for high-tech industries.

The gloomy figures add to the economy’s grim start to the year, coming amid growing panic over the depreciation of the yuan and state media reports on short sellers’ “attacks” in manipulating the market for the renminbi and other Asian currencies.

“For the first time in more than a decade” is becoming a consistent qualifier for these sorts of economic indications. A week ago, China reported electrical output and steel production now at just such historical comparison:

China’s output of electric power and steel fell for the first time in decades in 2015, while coal production dropped for a second year in row, illustrating how a slowing economy and shift to consumer-led growth is hurting industrial consumers.

China’s economy grew at its weakest pace in a quarter of a century in 2015 and efforts to restructure have not only slashed demand but also exposed massive overcapacity in industrial sectors such as coal, steel and power.

Despite these dire results and measurements, there is still this tug of “consumer-led transition” that, as noted in the quote above, remains as a bulwark optimistic sentiment. It can be distilled as if an economy operates in completely discrete and replaceable fashion; as if when industry struggles then services will just continue on that much better until industry no longer matters at all; and if industry really, really struggles, consumption and the service economy should only factor a minor nuisance being so separated. There are no such Chinese walls (pun intended) within an economic system (which extends globally).

That brings up the second contradiction noted by persistently decreasing industrial activity in China (and elsewhere). To this point, despite production and output cuts (and to capex and capacity growth) there has yet to be the major transition to across-the-board resource reduction, including and especially labor. In other words, consumption in China might not look as bad as production but only because there are time lags and frictions (as economists call them) that forestall synchronization even in these downward recessionary legs. Once production stalls and contracts long enough, especially in profitability terms, businesses will eventually seek to harmonize production with their resources – the very bad news of total cutbacks, including and especially pay and then labor in full.

To wit:

China’s business confidence and recruitment activity slipped to record lows in January, a survey showed, adding to signs of weakness in the world’s second-largest economy that could prod policymakers to roll out more support measures…

The staffing index fell to 50.3 in January, near the 50 no-change mark, from 50.8 in December, hitting its lowest since the survey began, as businesses have become more hesitant to recruit as economic activity weakens, the survey showed.

And:

The slowdown in the Chinese economy has spread its tentacles to China’s white-collar workers who have received fewer year-end bonuses, according to a survey carried out by a recruitment company.

The study by Zhaopin, a Beijing-based recruitment website, said 66 per cent of the 10,615 white-collar workers polled had not received, or expected, a year-end bonus.

That compares with the 61.2 per cent who gave the same answer when polled the previous year.

About 14 per cent of the people surveyed did get a bonus for 2015.

The average paid out was over 10,000 yuan (HK$12,000), nearly 3,000 yuan down from 2014, the survey showed. Workers were polled in 32 cities across China.

The production decay is only, perhaps, just now starting to impact the wider Chinese economy. It counts not just in resource management and eventual capitulation on those terms, but also financial terms – precisely the problem with China’s “outflows.” This is the third worrisome notice from China’s industrial profitability, namely that defaults or at least perceptions of default risk will only exacerbate an already tenuous position for China’s financial networks; especially its “dollar” short.

As the eurodollar standard built China in what looked like “hot money” inflows, that created lending formation and chained liabilities predicated on China being China forever; not China placing all its hopes and dreams on an unproven and hardly-detected consumer transition (that wasn’t really specified until economists started to belatedly recognize “something” was wrong with industry where they were sure nothing ever could be wrong). There are enormous financial implications in the slowdown as it reaches unknowable trigger points, some of which we have undoubtedly already witnessed. If you are a “dollar” provider into China’s banks, as NPL’s rise with this production massacre you are not going to remain statically attached while it all seems to get worse and worse (especially as central bankers and “experts” continue to protest there isn’t anything wrong in the first place that temporary tweaks won’t alleviate).

External image

Economics becomes finance, and finance only furthers those negative economics. Financial distress in and of China both confirms the onrushing economic disaster as it was, while suggesting, because financial imbalance has not yet relented, not even close, much more to come.

Our three parts then sum to: China’s industry persists at only getting worse even though it has already reverted to a state not seen in a decade or more; consumer appearances may seem generally optimistic despite all that but only because industrial activity has yet to fully make adjustments through resources and labor; and financial trends are likely already at the stage of self-reinforcement within and without. You can see why China’s problems might trouble Citi’s economists and staff researchers in a way that perhaps the bank’s CEO might rather gloss over and around.

“Our” problem is that these trends and analytics are not just for and of China. There are no discrete pockets of fortified economic resolve with which to withstand a global “manufacturing recession.” There are only interconnections between individual economic circumstances that are augmented, amplified and affected by reflexivity in financial markets and conditions. That Citigroup is now recognizing this as a very real possibility, in sharp contrast to last January’s “transitory” commandment, shows how truly far along the economic and financial disease has infiltrated – globally. After all, China’s vast industrial might was built through eurodollars to service “global consumers”, of which Americans account for the bulk; upward as well as downward.

External image



External image


External image


External image


External image
External image
External image
External image


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1PpGt6K
Citi U.S. Small Business Lending Surpasses $10 Billion in 2015

NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–

Citi announced today that it lent more than $10 billion to U.S. small businesses in 2015. Over the past five years, Citi has lent small businesses in the U.S. a total of $46 billion. Citi’s pace of small business lending in 2015 ($10.0 billion) surpassed that of 2009 ($4.5 billion) by more than 120 percent.

This Smart News Release features multimedia. View the full release here: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160127005780/en/

Citi CEO Michael Corbat said, “Five years ago we pledged to dramatically increase our lending to small businesses because they are critical to job creation and economic growth. Since that time we’ve lent $46 billion to all types of small businesses throughout the country. This increased level of lending has helped entrepreneurs strengthen their businesses, generate new jobs and add lasting value to our communities. We will continue to do our part to help this vibrant sector thrive.”

Citi has multiple lending programs for small businesses with the goal of responsibly providing loans to as many small business customers as possible. Small business clients have an opportunity to access this capital through loans, lines of credit and other conventional products. In addition, clients are eligible for loans through SBA programs under which Citi is a preferred lender.

Citi is dedicated to helping small business owners who may not qualify for traditional financing access the capital they need to succeed. Programs include the innovative work of its Community Development and Community Capital divisions and the Citi Foundation, which are working to expand financial inclusion and economic opportunity. Citi’s community-based small business efforts focus on working with local and national organizations, including qualified, mission-based Community Development Financial Institutions, Community Development Corporations, microfinance institutions and local municipalities to help entrepreneurs begin and grow their businesses and create jobs.

About Citi

Citi, the leading global bank, has approximately 200 million customer accounts and does business in more than 160 countries and jurisdictions. Citi provides consumers, corporations, governments and institutions with a broad range of financial products and services, including consumer banking and credit, corporate and investment banking, securities brokerage, transaction services, and wealth management.

Additional information may be found at www.citigroup.com | Twitter: @Citi | YouTube: www.youtube.com/citi | Blog: http://blog.citigroup.com | Facebook: www.facebook.com/citi | LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/citi

© 2016 Citigroup Inc. Citibank, N.A., Member FDIC. Citi and Citibank and Arc Design are registered service marks of Citigroup Inc.

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160127005780/en/

MULTIMEDIA AVAILABLE:http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160127005780/en/

.bwalignc {text-align: center !important;} .bwuline {text-decoration: underline !important;} ;}
Citigroup CEO Invests in Company

Michael Corbat (Insider Trades), CEO of Citigroup Inc. ©, bought 25,000 shares of the company on Jan. 22. The average price per share was $41.05, for a total transaction of $1,026,250.


Citigroup is a global bank that does business in more than 160 countries and jurisdictions. The company’s market cap is $119.43 billion, and the P/S ratio is 1.75.

Citigroup Director Michael O'Neill (Insider Trades) also acquired 25,000 shares of Citigroup on Jan. 22 at an average per share price of $41.01. Corbat made one insider buy of 25,000 shares and one insider sell of 21,017 shares of the company since January 2011. Though the number and volume of insider buys varies each year from 2012 to 2015, the number and volume of Citigroup insider sells peaked at 19 transactions totaling 34,402,767 million shares in 2014 and then fell to eight transactions totaling 38,280 shares in the following year.

For more information about insider trades with Citigroup, click here.

Citigroup reported total revenue of $18.456 billion in the fourth quarter of 2015, up from total revenue of $17.899 billion reported by the company in the corresponding quarter of 2014. Annual revenue growth decreased by 0.26% in the five years since 2011 but follows an increasing trend line overall.

The opposite is true for annual Citigroup net income. Annual net income increased by 25.56% since 2011 then followed a decreasing trend line.
The company’s net income also increased to $3.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2015; up by more than 900% when compared to the previous year’s fourth quarter. On Jan. 14 Citigoup’s board of directors declared a quarterly divided of 5 cents per share of common stock payable Feb. 26 to shareholders of record on Feb. 1. Corbat commented that the company, “having generated $50 billion in regulatory capital over the last three years,” which in part allowed the company to “return meaningful capital” to shareholders, has also “undoubtedly become a simpler, smaller, safer and stronger institution.”

Citigroup has a business predictability rank of 1 out of 5 stars. For more information about business predictability rank, click here.

Ken Fisher acquired 139,215 shares of Citigroup in the fourth quarter of 2015. The average price per share was $53.07, and the total estimated loss of the holding since the fourth quarter of 2012 is 17%. For more information about guru transactions with Citigroup, click here.

For more stock trades of gurus in real time, visit GuruFocus’ Real Time Picks, a Premium Feature. Not a Premium Member of GuruFocus? Try it free for 7 days here.

This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
WEF creates task force with Carney, Rajan to study global financial system

(Adds more detail)

By Huw Jones

LONDON, Jan 26 (Reuters) - The World Economic Forum (WEF) has created a new task force with Bank of England Governor Mark Carney and his counterpart at the Reserve Bank of India, Raghuram Rajan, to study how rapid changes in technology affect financial stability and growth.

The group, formed partly at the request of Carney, includes Bank of America Chairman and CEO Brian Moynihan and HSBC Chairman Douglas Flint.

“The group will focus on the inclusion of emerging market economies in the global financial system, technology-enabled innovation, and the economic cost benefit of post-crisis regulatory reforms,” the WEF said in a statement.

Michael Corbat, CEO of Citigroup, and BlackRock Chairman and CEO Laurence Fink are also members, along with Min Zhu, deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and Liu Mingkang, a research fellow at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

The task force will look at emerging markets, technology, regulatory and monetary policies, loss of trust in financial services, and financial inclusion.

The WEF’s annual meeting in Davos last week discussed what it called the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or the idea that technological advances will allow even greater levels of automation, transforming the global economy in profound ways.

WEF Managing Director Giancarlo Bruno said the timing of the task force’s creation was consistent with the WEF’s focus on the Fourth Industrial revolution.

“Its work will look into the implications of innovation on stability of the financial system and its role as growth engine,” he said.

The task force aims to publish a comprehensive suite of recommendations and actions during the Davos annual meeting in early 2017.

Carney also heads the G20’s Financial Stability Board which writes and coordinates regulation for the world’s main financial centres, meaning the recommendations are likely to be given a hearing by world leaders.

(Reporting by Huw Jones; Editing by Andy Bruce and Raissa Kasolowsky)

WEF creates task force with Carney, Rajan to study global financial system

(Adds more detail)

By Huw Jones

LONDON, Jan 26 (Reuters) - The World Economic Forum (WEF) has created a new task force with Bank of England Governor Mark Carney and his counterpart at the Reserve Bank of India, Raghuram Rajan, to study how rapid changes in technology affect financial stability and growth.

The group, formed partly at the request of Carney, includes Bank of America Chairman and CEO Brian Moynihan and HSBC Chairman Douglas Flint.

“The group will focus on the inclusion of emerging market economies in the global financial system, technology-enabled innovation, and the economic cost benefit of post-crisis regulatory reforms,” the WEF said in a statement.

Michael Corbat, CEO of Citigroup (NYSE: C - news) , and BlackRock Chairman and CEO Laurence Fink are also members, along with Min Zhu, deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and Liu Mingkang, a research fellow at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

The task force will look at emerging markets, technology, regulatory and monetary policies, loss of trust in financial services, and financial inclusion.

The WEF’s annual meeting in Davos last week discussed what it called the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or the idea that technological advances will allow even greater levels of automation, transforming the global economy in profound ways.

WEF Managing Director Giancarlo Bruno said the timing of the task force’s creation was consistent with the WEF’s focus on the Fourth Industrial revolution.

“Its work will look into the implications of innovation on stability of the financial system and its role as growth engine,” he said.

The task force aims to publish a comprehensive suite of recommendations and actions during the Davos annual meeting in early 2017.

Carney also heads the G20’s Financial Stability Board which writes and coordinates regulation for the world’s main financial centres, meaning the recommendations are likely to be given a hearing by world leaders. (Reporting by Huw Jones; Editing by Andy Bruce and Raissa Kasolowsky)

Citigroup Earnings Plummet on Legal Expenses and Weak Trading

Citigroup Earnings Plummet on Legal Expenses and Weak Trading

The bank said profit fell to $350 million from $2.5 billion in the period a year earlier, weighed down by large legal charges and a greater than expected drop in trading revenue.

Read More

View On WordPress

Weekly CEO Buys Highlights

According to GuruFocus Insider Data, these are the largest CEO buys during the past week. The overall trend of CEOs is illustrated in the chart below:


Citigroup: CEO Michael Corbat bought 25,000 shares

Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C) CEO Michael Corbat bought 25,000 shares on Jan. 22 at an average price of $39.55. Citigroup was incorporated in 1988 under the laws of the state of Delaware. Citigroup has a market cap of $117.82 billion; its shares were traded at around $39.55 with a P/E ratio of 8.96 and P/S ratio of 1.58. The dividend yield of Citigroup stocks is 0.40%.

Citigroup recently reported net income for the fourth quarter 2015 of $3.3 billion, or $1.02 per diluted share, on revenues of $18.5 billion. This compared to net income of $344 million, or 6 cents per diluted share, on revenues of $17.9 billion for the fourth quarter 2014.

Mario Gabelli (Trades, Portfolio) owned 407,640 shares as of Dec. 31, 2014, an increase of 22.55% from the previous quarter. This position accounts for 0.11% of the $15.22 billion portfolio of GAMCO Investors. Whitney Tilson (Trades, Portfolio) sold out his holdings in the quarter that ended on Dec. 31, 2014. David Tepper (Trades, Portfolio) sold out his holdings in the quarter that ended on Dec. 31, 2014.

CFO John C. Gerspach sold 10,000 shares of Citigroup stock on Aug. 5, 2015 at the average price of 58.82. Gerspach owns at least 302,098 shares. The price of the stock has decreased by 32.76% since the transaction.

Opko Health: CEO, Chairman, 10% owner Phillip Frost MD et al bought 102,000 shares

Opko Health Inc. (OPK) CEO, Chairman and 10% Owner Phillip Frost MD et al bought 102,000 shares during the past week at an average price of $7.96. Opko Health was originally incorporated in Delaware in October 1991 under the name Cytoclonal Pharmaceutics Inc. Opko Health has a market cap of $4.34 billion; its shares were traded at around $7.96 with and P/S ratio of 15.92. Opko Health had an annual average earnings growth of 9.00% over the past 10 years.

Opko Health recently reported its third-quarter 2015 financial results. Consolidated revenues increased to $143.0 million from $19.8 million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2015 compared to three months ended Sept. 30, 2014, and increased to $215.5 million from $65.6 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2015 as compared to the 2014 period.

George Soros (Trades, Portfolio) owned 235,600 shares as of Dec. 31, 2014, which accounts for 0.026% of the $5.84 billion portfolio of Soros Fund Management LLC. Mario Gabelli (Trades, Portfolio) owned 11,000 shares as of Dec. 31, 2014, which accounts for 0.0006% of the $15.22 billion portfolio of GAMCO Investors.

Sr. Vice President, CFO Adam Logal bought 1,000 shares of Opko stock on Sept. 14, 2015 at the average price of $9.95. Adam Logal owns at least 45,789 shares after this. The price of the stock has decreased by 20% since.

JMP Group LLC: CEO, 10% owner Joseph A. Jolson bought 87,532 shares

JMP Group LLC (JMP) Joseph A. Jolson bought 87,532 shares on Jan. 19 at an average price of $5.63. JMP Group LLC is a Delaware Corporation incorporated in January 2000. JMP Group has a market cap of $119.600 million; its shares were traded at around $5.63 with a P/E ratio of 10.96 and P/S ratio of 1.02. The dividend yield of JMP Group stocks is 8.08%.

CFO Raymond Jackson bought 4,000 shares of JMP stock on Dec. 14, 2015 at the average price of $5.26. Jackson now owns at least 84,457 shares. The price of the stock has increased by 7.03% since.

Tuesday Morning: CEO Steven R. Becker bought 86,820 shares

Tuesday Morning Corp. (TUES) CEO Steven R. Becker bought 86,820 shares on Jan. 20 at an average price of $5.34. Tuesday Morning is a Delaware corporation incorporated in 1991. It has a market cap of $236.670 million; its shares were traded at around $5.34 with a P/E ratio of 22.14 and P/S ratio of 0.28.

Tuesday Morning recently reported its first quarter fiscal 2016 financial results. Net sales were $202.3 million, compared to $202.2 million for the first quarter of fiscal 2015. The company’s sales comparison to the prior year is impacted by the net closure of 44 stores since the end of the first quarter of the prior fiscal year. Comparable store sales increased 3.6% compared to the same period a year ago.

Director Terry Lee Burman bought 60,000 shares of Tuesday Morning stock on Nov. 13, 2015 at the average price of $5.52. Burman owns at least 92,786 shares. The price of the stock has decreased by 3.26%.

Calamos Asset Management: Chairman, CEO, Global Co-CIO, 10% owner John P. Calamos Sr. bought 44,220 shares

Calamos Asset Management Inc. (CLMS) Chairman, CEO, Global Co-CIO and 10% owner John P. Calamos Sr. bought 44,220 shares during the past week at an average price of $9.07. Calamos Asset Management is a Delaware corporation, incorporated on July 23, 2004. Calamos Asset Management has a market cap of $186.210 million; its shares were traded at around $9.07 with a P/E ratio of 22.70 and P/S ratio of 0.70. The dividend yield of Calamos Asset Management stocks is 6.61%.

Mario Gabelli (Trades, Portfolio) owned 161,000 shares as of Dec. 31, 2014, which accounts for 0.011% of the $15.22 billion portfolio of GAMCO Investors.

SVP and CFO Nimish S. Bhatt bought 763 shares of Calamos stock on Nov. 24, 2015 at the average price of 9.38. Bhatt owns at least 108,847 shares. The price of the stock has decreased by 3.3%.

This article first appeared on GuruFocus.