Citi profit tops view, fueling sector confidence

[Range Rover]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_citigroup/print


Citi profit tops view, fueling sector confidence

By Maria Aspan

NEW YORK, Oct 18 (Reuters) - Citigroup Inc (C.N) reported its third straight quarterly profit, beating forecasts and boosting optimism that the banking sector is on track to recover even amid a tepid economic expansion.

Relief about the improving results, bolstered by slowing credit losses and reduced reserves for bad loans, outweighed lingering concern about the foreclosure crisis, boosting the bank's shares nearly 4 percent.

Citigroup, whose problems during the financial crisis were so severe that it needed three different taxpayer rescues, is the second of the top banks to beat forecasts. JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) posted better-than-expected earnings last week. The No. 1 U.S. bank, Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), is due to report on Tuesday.

The gain in Citigroup shares helped fuel a broader rally in bank shares and lift U.S. stock indexes.

 

[Range Rover]

Another instance of Obama being bad for business (sarcasum)

 

[Tsing Tao]

paying attention to finance 101 wasn't your strong point, was it.

the only thing your post proves is that the msm controls your viewpoint, captain koolaid.

Oct. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc., the bank 12 percent- owned by U.S. taxpayers, said profit surged, beating analysts’ estimates as the company reduced loan-loss reserves by $1.99 billion.

Third-quarter net income was $2.17 billion, or 7 cents a share, compared with profit of $101 million, or a loss of 27 cents after preferred dividends, in the same period a year earlier, the New York-based bank said today.

...so profit was $2.17 billion on reduced reserves of $1.99 billion.

if only i could increase the money i made by reducing my savings account. now THAT would be something.

the only thing obama has to do with this is the fact that this kind of farce is allowed to continue under him, when he promised to do away with this kind of crap (which was the reason I voted for him originally, much to my regret now).

 

[phenomena]

I think you meant "sarcasm". This is not sarcasm: He's GREAT for business. Particularly large, unprofitable ones who's pocket he's in. He's fantastic for big business, and corporate welfare. For the people? Not so good... For small business?? Not so good... For incompetent big business who should be allowed to fail, but who have politicians in their pockets? Yeah, he's great!

Quote from Range Rover:

Another instance of Obama being bad for business (sarcasum)

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

paying attention to finance 101 wasn't your strong point, was it.

the only thing your post proves is that the msm controls your viewpoint, captain koolaid.



...so profit was $2.17 billion on reduced reserves of $1.99 billion.

Reducing reserves is an indication of confidence in the economy, is it not?

 

[Range Rover]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

o finance 101 wasn't your strong point, was it.

I'm guessing it wasn't yours.After losing 29 billion the last 2 years, they are now about to have a profit




"The reserve reductions bring Pandit, 53, one quarter closer to achieving his first annual profit after losses in 2008 and 2009 that totaled $29.3 billion."

 

[Range Rover]

Quote from phenomena:

I think you meant "sarcasm". This is not sarcasm: He's GREAT for business. Particularly large, unprofitable ones who's pocket he's in. He's fantastic for big business, and corporate welfare. For the people? Not so good... For small business?? Not so good... For incompetent big business who should be allowed to fail, but who have politicians in their pockets? Yeah, he's great!

I think you meant "Catholics".(Don't say it was copied from Ricter's post,because he spelled it right.)


http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2985225#post2985225

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Reducing reserves is an indication of confidence in the economy, is it not?

lol! no.

it's an indication of trying to beat a profit target to drive the jam higher. reducing reserves in light of the foreclosure crap that the banks might be on the hook for is not only not prudent, it's risky. but who cares when they know uncle benny and aunt obama will come and bail 'em out again!

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Range Rover:

I'm guessing it wasn't yours.After losing 29 billion the last 2 years, they are now about to have a profit




"The reserve reductions bring Pandit, 53, one quarter closer to achieving his first annual profit after losses in 2008 and 2009 that totaled $29.3 billion."

??

so youre confirming what i said? and then calling me dumb because i was the one who identified it, when you think it's related to obama?

please dont breed.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

lol! no.

it's an indication of trying to beat a profit target to drive the jam higher. reducing reserves in light of the foreclosure crap that the banks might be on the hook for is not only not prudent, it's risky. but who cares when they know uncle benny and aunt obama will come and bail 'em out again!

Oh, okay, so presumably according to you banks are allowed infinite leverage.