<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>James Leong &#124; Web Developer &#187; finance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://james.com.sg/category/finance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://james.com.sg</link>
	<description>Blog of a budding (another word for poor) entrepeneur</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 05:40:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Citigroup and GIC</title>
		<link>http://james.com.sg/2009/03/08/citigroup-and-gic/</link>
		<comments>http://james.com.sg/2009/03/08/citigroup-and-gic/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:30:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>james</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[finance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://james.com.sg/2009/03/08/citigroup-and-gic/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[27 Feb 2009, the news was out.&#160; GIC was going to exchange its convertible bond to common stock at a price of $3.25 per share.&#160; Based on the opening share price of $1.67 on Friday, this will mean that GIC will have realised a lost of almost half its investment.
The first comment that came out [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>27 Feb 2009, the news was out.&#160; GIC was going to exchange its convertible bond to common stock at a price of $3.25 per share.&#160; Based on the opening share price of $1.67 on Friday, this will mean that GIC will have realised a lost of almost half its investment.</p>
<p>The first comment that came out of the article (which I could no longer retrieve because the online Straitstimes actually do now show any news article past 7 days)&#8230; exclaim that the loses have not even taken account of the further decline of share price caused by share dilution.</p>
<p>Well, I totally disagreed with that comment.&#160; I felt that the result would have been contrary.&#160; I thought that this was really a good piece of news for Citigroup.&#160; The fact that I am blogging about this is&#8230; I have been proven wrong by the markets.</p>
<p>Hmmm&#8230; makes me reminiscent about the song&#8230; &quot;I started a joke&#8230; but I didn&#8217;t see &#8230; that the joke was on me&#8230;&quot;</p>
<p> <span id="more-203"></span>
<p><strong><u>So why did I think otherwise?</u></strong></p>
<p>It had to be a piece of good news for Citigroup.&#160; Citigroup owes our government US 6.88 billion and instead of needing to pay it back, they got GIC to convert it at double the market price at $3.25.&#160; If its on a negotiation table, it would have been a double whammy to GIC because:</p>
<ul>
<li>In general, institutional investors are given preferential deals because of their large amounts of investments. </li>
<li>Rights offering (so far as I know) are always at a lower price then the current share price to induce shareholders&#8217; take up.&#160; </li>
</ul>
<p>So, by all accounts, it is only right that it should be lower than the current market price.&#160; But instead&#8230; the final price agreed upon was not lower&#8230; not even equal &#8230; but double the current price.&#160; In fact, the deal sucks so much that:</p>
<blockquote><p>The US government&#8217;s move was conditional on Citigroup getting other major preferred shareholders to do the same. The bank also agreed to reconstitute its board. CEO Vikram Pandit will stay on.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hmmm&#8230; and so if Citigroup has struck such a favourable deal for itself, shouldn&#8217;t the share price just go up? </p>
<p><strong><u>It went down.&#160; All the way down.</u></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://james.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/image5.png"><img style="border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-bottom: 0px" height="268" alt="image" src="http://james.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/image-thumb5.png" width="700" border="0" /></a> </p>
<p>Why? Well based on Google Finance, you can see there are possible 5 reasons: F G H I and J (dun we just love Google?)</p>
<blockquote><p>The dollar rose to the highest in almost three years against the currencies of six major U.S. trading partners as the deepening recession and the third government bailout of <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=C%3AUS">Citigroup Inc.</a> stoked demand for safety</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Citigroup plunged 39 percent after the Treasury agreed to convert as much as $25 billion of preferred shares into common stock in a third rescue attempt</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Well.. apparently, the bailout did not go well with the markets.&#160; This makes it so complicated.&#160; So not all bailouts are good for the markets.&#160; Still remembered the first time they announced the 800 billion bailout&#8230; share prices practically sky-rocketed.&#160; But this time.. what happened?&#160; If its a bailout, should it not be good news for the company itself?</p>
<p>Confused</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://james.com.sg/2009/03/08/citigroup-and-gic/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

