When a corporation lays off thousands of workers

Le Jacquelope

Loves Spam
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Posts
76,445
isn't it time that we start levying huge, HUGE fines against the people at the top of that company's food chain?

Fining the CEO and management for such drastic hits on our economy is barely a drop in the bucket for what we'll need to get those laid off workers re-employed - which will have them paying tax revenue again, a net plus for our economy - but it's a start.

It's time for corporations to start making amends for when upper management's shitty decisions cost America a ton of jobs and tax revenue. If you wanna do business in or with America, then you stop fucking up like this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080115...p&printer=1;_ylt=AiPpNfcWrgx6uRG8U13QSORv24cA

Citi loses almost $10B, slashes dividend

By MADLEN READ, AP Business Writer 41 minutes ago

Citigroup Inc. lost almost $10 billion in last year's final three months, the largest quarterly deficit in its 196-year history, and slashed its dividend and 4,200 jobs as it recorded a mammoth write-down for bad bets on the mortgage industry.

The nation's largest bank wrote down the value of its portfolio by $18.1 billion and said it was setting aside $4 billion to cover U.S. consumer credit defaults. It signaled further problems in its consumer businesses as deflated home prices, high energy and food costs, and rising unemployment weigh on people's ability to keep up with their payments.

The reduction of 4,200 jobs in the fourth quarter is in addition to 17,000 layoffs announced in the spring, and chief financial officer Gary Crittenden said during a conference call that more job cuts would be on the way.

Chief Executive Vikram Pandit, who replaced Charles Prince in December, said the fourth-quarter results were "unacceptable", and that he was "not yet finished" in his review of whether any of the global bank's core operations need to be cut or sold.

To bolster its capital, the bank also said Tuesday it has lined up $12.5 billion in new investments from sovereign wealth funds and existing shareholders.

That includes $6.88 billion from the Government of Singapore Investment Corp. for a 4 percent stake. Other investors were Capital Research Global Investors, Capital World Investors, the Kuwait Investment Authority, the New Jersey Division of Investment, shareholder Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia and former chief executive Sanford Weill and his family foundation.

The $12.5 billion in fresh equity adds to the $7.5 billion that Citi got in November from the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority in exchange for a 4.9 percent stake in the company.

Citigroup's shares, which were trading around $55 a year ago, fell $1.98, or 6.8 percent, to $27.08 in morning dealings on Tuesday.

The loss for the quarter totaled $9.83 billion, or $1.99 per share, compared with earnings of $5.13 billion, or $1.03 per share, during the same quarter a year earlier. Citigroup's revenue fell to $7.22 billion, down 70 percent from $23.83 billion in the final quarter of 2006.

Citigroup said the 41 percent cut in its quarterly dividend to 32 cents a share from 54 cents — along with the Asian investments and a stock offering of about $2 billion — will help boost its Tier 1 capital ratio, a measure of its financial strength. But it will also dilute the value of shareholders' stock.

Financial companies have been the highest dividend-paying sector in the stock market, but many — including Washington Mutual Inc., National City Corp. and the government-sponsored lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — have pared those payouts in recent months.

Citigroup's decision to cut its dividend and seek new cash from outside investors was widely anticipated on Wall Street after months of scrutiny over the bank's deteriorating operations. The biggest was Citigroup's bad bets on mortgage-backed bond instruments called collateralized debt obligations. It also was forced to bring $49 billion in hemorrhaging funds known as structured investment vehicles onto its books.

Over the past several weeks, Asian funds have been buying up the battered stocks of struggling U.S. banks. Early Tuesday, Merrill Lynch said it will receive a total of $6.6 billion from the Korean Investment Corp., Kuwait Investment Authority and Japan's Mizuho Corporate Bank — in addition to the $4.4 billion it has already gotten from Singapore's state-run Temasek Holdings.

Pandit said Citigroup would continue to sell "non-core" assets. The bank has already sold shares in Redecard, a card business in Latin America, and an ownership interest in a unit of the Japanese brokerage Nikko Cordial it bought last year.

Citigroup's $18.1 billion writedown was significantly wider than the $6 billion writedown it took in the third quarter last year, and bigger than the $8 billion to $11 billion it guessed in October that it would take for the fourth quarter.

Citigroup said as of Dec. 31, it had a total of $37.3 billion in direct subprime mortgage exposure, down from $54.6 billion three months prior.

It was not all bad news for Citigroup, as the bank recorded record results in its international consumer, transaction services and wealth management segments.

But the bank's strengths were not nearly big enough to offset its weaknesses.

Citi's full-year net income for 2007 fell 83 percent to $3.62 billion, or 72 cents a share, versus a year ago.

___

AP Business Writer Stephen Bernard contributed to this report.
 
isn't it time that we start levying huge, HUGE fines against the people at the top of that company's food chain?

Fining the CEO and management for such drastic hits on our economy is barely a drop in the bucket for what we'll need to get those laid off workers re-employed - which will have them paying tax revenue again, a net plus for our economy - but it's a start.

It's time for corporations to start making amends for when upper management's shitty decisions cost America a ton of jobs and tax revenue. If you wanna do business in or with America, then you stop fucking up like this.

I disagree. The CEO has to answer to the shareholders, who want all the profit. While people like Sister KRCummings are the stock holders, this will continue to be a problem for the poor CEOs
 
isn't it time that we start levying huge, HUGE fines against the people at the top of that company's food chain?

Fining the CEO and management for such drastic hits on our economy is barely a drop in the bucket for what we'll need to get those laid off workers re-employed - which will have them paying tax revenue again, a net plus for our economy - but it's a start.

It's time for corporations to start making amends for when upper management's shitty decisions cost America a ton of jobs and tax revenue. If you wanna do business in or with America, then you stop fucking up like this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080115...p&printer=1;_ylt=AiPpNfcWrgx6uRG8U13QSORv24cA

Citi loses almost $10B, slashes dividend

By MADLEN READ, AP Business Writer 41 minutes ago

Citigroup Inc. lost almost $10 billion in last year's final three months, the largest quarterly deficit in its 196-year history, and slashed its dividend and 4,200 jobs as it recorded a mammoth write-down for bad bets on the mortgage industry.

The nation's largest bank wrote down the value of its portfolio by $18.1 billion and said it was setting aside $4 billion to cover U.S. consumer credit defaults. It signaled further problems in its consumer businesses as deflated home prices, high energy and food costs, and rising unemployment weigh on people's ability to keep up with their payments.

The reduction of 4,200 jobs in the fourth quarter is in addition to 17,000 layoffs announced in the spring, and chief financial officer Gary Crittenden said during a conference call that more job cuts would be on the way.

Chief Executive Vikram Pandit, who replaced Charles Prince in December, said the fourth-quarter results were "unacceptable", and that he was "not yet finished" in his review of whether any of the global bank's core operations need to be cut or sold.

To bolster its capital, the bank also said Tuesday it has lined up $12.5 billion in new investments from sovereign wealth funds and existing shareholders.

That includes $6.88 billion from the Government of Singapore Investment Corp. for a 4 percent stake. Other investors were Capital Research Global Investors, Capital World Investors, the Kuwait Investment Authority, the New Jersey Division of Investment, shareholder Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia and former chief executive Sanford Weill and his family foundation.

The $12.5 billion in fresh equity adds to the $7.5 billion that Citi got in November from the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority in exchange for a 4.9 percent stake in the company.

Citigroup's shares, which were trading around $55 a year ago, fell $1.98, or 6.8 percent, to $27.08 in morning dealings on Tuesday.

The loss for the quarter totaled $9.83 billion, or $1.99 per share, compared with earnings of $5.13 billion, or $1.03 per share, during the same quarter a year earlier. Citigroup's revenue fell to $7.22 billion, down 70 percent from $23.83 billion in the final quarter of 2006.

Citigroup said the 41 percent cut in its quarterly dividend to 32 cents a share from 54 cents — along with the Asian investments and a stock offering of about $2 billion — will help boost its Tier 1 capital ratio, a measure of its financial strength. But it will also dilute the value of shareholders' stock.

Financial companies have been the highest dividend-paying sector in the stock market, but many — including Washington Mutual Inc., National City Corp. and the government-sponsored lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — have pared those payouts in recent months.

Citigroup's decision to cut its dividend and seek new cash from outside investors was widely anticipated on Wall Street after months of scrutiny over the bank's deteriorating operations. The biggest was Citigroup's bad bets on mortgage-backed bond instruments called collateralized debt obligations. It also was forced to bring $49 billion in hemorrhaging funds known as structured investment vehicles onto its books.

Over the past several weeks, Asian funds have been buying up the battered stocks of struggling U.S. banks. Early Tuesday, Merrill Lynch said it will receive a total of $6.6 billion from the Korean Investment Corp., Kuwait Investment Authority and Japan's Mizuho Corporate Bank — in addition to the $4.4 billion it has already gotten from Singapore's state-run Temasek Holdings.

Pandit said Citigroup would continue to sell "non-core" assets. The bank has already sold shares in Redecard, a card business in Latin America, and an ownership interest in a unit of the Japanese brokerage Nikko Cordial it bought last year.

Citigroup's $18.1 billion writedown was significantly wider than the $6 billion writedown it took in the third quarter last year, and bigger than the $8 billion to $11 billion it guessed in October that it would take for the fourth quarter.

Citigroup said as of Dec. 31, it had a total of $37.3 billion in direct subprime mortgage exposure, down from $54.6 billion three months prior.

It was not all bad news for Citigroup, as the bank recorded record results in its international consumer, transaction services and wealth management segments.

But the bank's strengths were not nearly big enough to offset its weaknesses.

Citi's full-year net income for 2007 fell 83 percent to $3.62 billion, or 72 cents a share, versus a year ago.

___

AP Business Writer Stephen Bernard contributed to this report.

How many of them had citibank mortgages????:D
 
I disagree. The CEO has to answer to the shareholders, who want all the profit. While people like Sister KRCummings are the stock holders, this will continue to be a problem for the poor CEOs
Poor CEOs my ass. A CEO costs a corporation

TEN BILLION DOLLARS
that's with a "B", dude

and he gets a multi million dollar golden parachute.


If a Citibank clerk cost that same company a thousand dollars in an unfortunate clerical error, they're fired and blacklisted from future employent.

Fuck that.
 
It's not always the CEO's fault. You can't blame everything on the people at the top. There are times when they have no more control over it than anyone else.
Stockholders make the decisions whether it's directly or indirectly and even they aren't always to blame.
Sometimes shit just happens.
 
It's not always the CEO's fault. You can't blame everything on the people at the top. There are times when they have no more control over it than anyone else.
Stockholders make the decisions whether it's directly or indirectly and even they aren't always to blame.
Sometimes shit just happens.

I am clairvoyant. Hence proved.
 
You're an idiot and I don't need to prove it, you do a fine job by yourself.

I am a clever genius and you are a bitter old lady. Probably in her sixties or fifties. I like you though, as I am nice to everybody.
 
Go Congress, Go Congress!

Pity this is just a show trial thingy.

http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/rtrs...a-subprime-congress-dc-7318940.html?printer=1

Congress panel wants to grill subprime CEOs on pay
Reuters
Reuters - Tuesday, January 15

WASHINGTON - Current and former CEOs of three major U.S. financial institutions deeply involved in the widening subprime mortgage crisis were asked on Monday by a Congressional committee to testify at a hearing next month on their massive pay and severance packages.

A House of Representatives panel invited Countrywide Financial Corp CEO Angelo Mozilo, former Citigroup Inc CEO Charles Prince and former Merrill Lynch & Co Inc CEO Stanley O'Neal to appear and answer questions on February 7.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a 17-term California Democrat, said he was seeking testimony from the executives as part of an "ongoing investigation into executive pay."

In a letter on the hearing sent to Mozilo, Waxman wrote: "According to recent press reports, if Bank of America Corp completes its proposed purchase of Countrywide Financial, you stand to collect tens of millions of dollars in severance payments and other compensation."

Waxman asked Mozilo to be prepared to explain how his compensation package aligns with shareholders' interests and whether it "is justified in light of your company's recent performance and its role in the national mortgage crisis."

Bank of America said on Friday it agreed to acquire Countrywide -- the largest U.S. mortgage lender and the poster child, say critics, for the subprime crisis -- for $4 billion.

Prince quit in early November as chief executive while Citigroup posted billions of dollars in subprime losses and O'Neal was ousted amid similar circumstances at Merrill Lynch.

Despite these problems, Merrill said O'Neal would collect about $161.5 million in stock awards and benefits after leaving. One expert estimated shortly after his resignation that Prince would depart Citi with about $31 million.

The same House committee held a hearing last month on executive pay during which Waxman said: "In the 1980s, the CEOs of the nation's largest companies were paid 40 times more than the average employee. Now they make over 600 times more. At a typical company, 10 percent of corporate profits -- a staggering sum -- goes into the pockets of top executives."
 
Citi as a corporation makes a huge part of its revenue from sky-high interest rate, moderate to high risk loans. 29% interest, etc. They deserve what they get in my opinion.
A fine or huge sanctions from the government would just put MORE people out of work, tho. It's a free market. Huge companies going under or scaling down is one of the major risks of a free-market society. If they are going to be penalized for scaling back or even going under, then they should get huge cash bonuses on top of the tax incentives they already get when they create new jobs.
Not logical, and not possible.
I do agree with the (apparent) sentiment that it sucks goat nuts that a ton of people will lose their jobs from this...
 
It's not always the CEO's fault. You can't blame everything on the people at the top. There are times when they have no more control over it than anyone else.
Stockholders make the decisions whether it's directly or indirectly and even they aren't always to blame.
Sometimes shit just happens.
But it's funny how the CEO walks out with thirty one million bucks while the company is in the middle of a $18 billion dollar write down and 17K... no wait, now 21K workers are losing their jobs.

I say start with the CEO forfeiting all pay as they hit the door. Take all his millions and put it into a job training fund. w00tage. Oh and those board of directors and 10%er stockholders you mentioned, ding them as well.
 
But it's funny how the CEO walks out with thirty one million bucks while the company is in the middle of a $18 billion dollar write down and 17K... no wait, now 21K workers are losing their jobs.

I say start with the CEO forfeiting all pay as they hit the door. Take all his millions and put it into a job training fund. w00tage. Oh and those board of directors and 10%er stockholders you mentioned, ding them as well.

The CEO does forfeit his pay, he's fired or quit. His bonus is not determined by him so it's not his fault. Also, much of the money that's reported comes from stock options which are given out over his/her tenure. You can't just take those away, they already belong to him.
You can't 'ding' stockholders either. They already get it from the typical drop that comes with a troubled company. Intentionally doing anything else would probably be illegal.
 
Citi as a corporation makes a huge part of its revenue from sky-high interest rate, moderate to high risk loans. 29% interest, etc. They deserve what they get in my opinion.
A fine or huge sanctions from the government would just put MORE people out of work, tho. It's a free market. Huge companies going under or scaling down is one of the major risks of a free-market society. If they are going to be penalized for scaling back or even going under, then they should get huge cash bonuses on top of the tax incentives they already get when they create new jobs.
Not logical, and not possible.
I do agree with the (apparent) sentiment that it sucks goat nuts that a ton of people will lose their jobs from this...
Are you saying that if CEOs, for instance, are allowed to make only 40 times as much as the average worker, and aren't allowed to make 600 times as much - namely, if much LESS than 10% of corporate profits are siphoned away by top dogs - that a company's going to go under?

Dude, we're talking about 10% of a company's profits going to a handful of people. It stinks like a Sicilian pizzo job. It's legal highway robbery. Reduce that 10% overhead to 5% and give the company an incentive NOT to give out golden parachutes during times of hardship, and they may bleed LESS money, not more.
 
Are you saying that if CEOs, for instance, are allowed to make only 40 times as much as the average worker, and aren't allowed to make 600 times as much - namely, if much LESS than 10% of corporate profits are siphoned away by top dogs - that a company's going to go under?

Dude, we're talking about 10% of a company's profits going to a handful of people. It stinks like a Sicilian pizzo job. It's legal highway robbery. Reduce that 10% overhead to 5% and give the company an incentive NOT to give out golden parachutes during times of hardship, and they may bleed LESS money, not more.

She is a girl.
 
Are you saying that if CEOs, for instance, are allowed to make only 40 times as much as the average worker, and aren't allowed to make 600 times as much - namely, if much LESS than 10% of corporate profits are siphoned away by top dogs - that a company's going to go under?

Dude, we're talking about 10% of a company's profits going to a handful of people. It stinks like a Sicilian pizzo job. It's legal highway robbery. Reduce that 10% overhead to 5% and give the company an incentive NOT to give out golden parachutes during times of hardship, and they may bleed LESS money, not more.

Do you want someone who doesn't know you telling you where to put all your money and not giving you a choice?
 
The CEO does forfeit his pay, he's fired or quit. His bonus is not determined by him so it's not his fault. Also, much of the money that's reported comes from stock options which are given out over his/her tenure. You can't just take those away, they already belong to him.
You can't 'ding' stockholders either. They already get it from the typical drop that comes with a troubled company. Intentionally doing anything else would probably be illegal.
I didn't say the CEO determined his own bonus. And his stock options can be frozen. We do it to terrorist organizations for one reason, we can do it to him for another reason. The stockholders who control the company are a very special group that already have restrictions put on how much they can sell. They should have more restrictions, such as having their stocks frozen by law if they're about to lay off a ton of people like this. Hell, fine their asses, make them pay more cash into a job retraining fund.
 
Do you want someone who doesn't know you telling you where to put all your money and not giving you a choice?
If I am causing society millions of dollars of damage by putting thousands of people on the unemployment line while planning on walking away with a $31 million severance package or while sitting on a pile of company stock?

You betcha I do.

It's called fines. Fines happen.
 
If I am causing society millions of dollars of damage by putting thousands of people on the unemployment line while planning on walking away with a $31 million severance package or while sitting on a pile of company stock?

You betcha I do.

It's called fines. Fines happen.

No, what you proposed was to force every company to limit what it can do with it's profits. You can't do that. At least not in this country.
 
Congress wants to look into how much business executives get paid?
Good to know they have a lot of time on their hands. Maybe they can sneak in a hearing between those probes into steroid use by pro athletes.
After that, maybe they'll grill John Travolta for getting paid $30 million to perform in a movie that grossed only $40 million.
 
No, what you proposed was to force every company to limit what it can do with it's profits. You can't do that. At least not in this country.
Oh, it can be done, with laws. We already limit what they can do with their profits. You ought to see the restrictions that get put on 10% shareholders, by the company itself and by the Government.

There's no part in the Constitution that says we can't hit Citibank's CEO and leading shareholders with huge fines for laying off that many people while themselves trying to walk away with huge sums of money. The problem lies in dealing with the corporate lobbyist opposition and determining the details of those fines, and granted, the devil is strong in those details.
 
Congress wants to look into how much business executives get paid?
Good to know they have a lot of time on their hands. Maybe they can sneak in a hearing between those probes into steroid use by pro athletes.
After that, maybe they'll grill John Travolta for getting paid $30 million to perform in a movie that grossed only $40 million.
You're mixing apples and oranges. Did Travolta's employers lay off a ton of people? :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top