CitiGroup 21.70 Good buy IMO what do you think?

MarketCap said: "Seems like the stock has priced in so much bad news"

max2themax said: "Citigroup is trading below its book value right now actually so ya, if it liquidates tomorrow it looks like you just pocketed the difference. Personally I think you should only buy a stock if its return-on-equity is greater than its WACC so that the company is actually growing. And Citigroup's equity is decreasing. It all depends on your investment time horizon."

ratAphooey said: "Long term I cant see CITI failing. But I wonder how well they will do in the next six months or so."

tomtat1 said: "I like C here but I agree it may take awhile for this one to pay off. You do get a good Dividend while you wait, but there is no guarantee it will not get cut again."

Harry said: "I think C is in an absolutely fantiastic place for a retirement account. But I'm in Wachovia Corporation (WB) for the same reasons."

tomtat1 said: "[QUOTE=Harry;69234]I think C is in an absolutely fantiastic place for a retirement account. But I'm in Wachovia Corporation (WB) for the same reasons.[/QUOTE] I also own WB. How did you feel about the dividend cut after management stated on several occasions that they saw no need to cut?"

prohobo said: "[QUOTE=MarketCap;69109]Seems like the stock has priced in so much bad news[/QUOTE] Yeah - so why are you buying again? Sure - it may not fail - Bear Stearns didn't fail, it was just purchased (takeunder) by another company. Citi has a long way to go before clarity is determined. If you think $21 is cheap - why not $15, or $10, or $5? I remember back when WorldCom, Enron, KMart, and a long list of others - when people said. "It seems that all the bad news is priced in!", "It can't go any lower!", "It's a take over-target!", "It will get bailed-out!"....the excuses for buying are long and again are speculative in nature. Buy Citi because you think it's a good value and then determine the ammount of capital you deploy base on it's risk vs. reward. Aproach it like this: 1. I think Citi is a good buy here because bad news "I Think" is priced in. 2. However - I am only investing 10% of my deployable capital because it does have BAD NEWS and it could get worse before it gets better. And if it does get bad - where is my exit point - realizing that I may not get a GOOD exit point in a downward GAP! Remember - Risk Manamgent is TOTALLY different than investing - you must where both hats. If you use the word "I think", "Hope", "It should" or anything else like that - you are not thinking in-terms of managing risk. Speculate - then manage risk. Don't let me or anyone on a message board convince you to buy Citi. Ask good questions about it to CONFIRM your speculation - but don't turn to the internet for your decisions. Accountability and Responsibilty are yours and yours alone. Good Luck with Citi - My opinion - I personally (nor does our firm) own ANY financial stocks. In fact we are still short a few."

MarketCap said: "Financials are cheap right now, I'm betting heavy that the sector is going to recover somewhat. I like Citi, JP and Merrill. Of course the stock can go lower, any stock can plunge any second, but more likely than not, the financial sector will outperform the market by quite a bit in the medium-long term."

tomtat1 said: "[QUOTE=prohobo;69310]Yeah - so why are you buying again? Sure - it may not fail - Bear Stearns didn't fail, it was just purchased (takeunder) by another company. Citi has a long way to go before clarity is determined. If you think $21 is cheap - why not $15, or $10, or $5? I remember back when WorldCom, Enron, KMart, and a long list of others - when people said. "It seems that all the bad news is priced in!", "It can't go any lower!", "It's a take over-target!", "It will get bailed-out!"....the excuses for buying are long and again are speculative in nature. Buy Citi because you think it's a good value and then determine the ammount of capital you deploy base on it's risk vs. reward. Aproach it like this: 1. I think Citi is a good buy here because bad news "I Think" is priced in. 2. However - I am only investing 10% of my deployable capital because it does have BAD NEWS and it could get worse before it gets better. And if it does get bad - where is my exit point - realizing that I may not get a GOOD exit point in a downward GAP! Remember - Risk Manamgent is TOTALLY different than investing - you must where both hats. If you use the word "I think", "Hope", "It should" or anything else like that - you are not thinking in-terms of managing risk. Speculate - then manage risk. Don't let me or anyone on a message board convince you to buy Citi. Ask good questions about it to CONFIRM your speculation - but don't turn to the internet for your decisions. Accountability and Responsibilty are yours and yours alone. Good Luck with Citi - My opinion - I personally (nor does our firm) own ANY financial stocks. In fact we are still short a few.[/QUOTE] I agree with what you are saying. These stocks are not safe dividend plays although they will appear on most screens for dividends. My reason for owning the big banks here is that the Fed is bailing them out as we speak. The fed has pretty much come out and said that they will do whatever it takes to keep these Guys afloat. I believe that if they aren’t going to fail that they are a good bet to return to historical valuations at some point in the future. After all most of their competition has either gone out of business or been bought by them. WB had 11 billion in interest expense last year with an average short term rate of just over 5%. The average this year will probably be 2.25%. That will add about 5-6 billion to there bottom line this year since long rates haven’t moved much. Add to this the fact that the fed is exchanging all there trash for treasuries, and will do more if necessary and I feel comfortable putting some of my speculative money to work in this sector."

newguy87 said: "Well looks like Wachovia finally got rid of their CEO Ken Thompson. In a few threads I've been mentioning how I didn't like the management at the bank cause of the acquisitions of Golden West at the peak and high price paid for AG Edwards. Hopefully they'll replace him with someone better but I get the eerie feeling that there's probably some other shoe to drop. If they were gonna get rid of him they could have done it awhile ago like Citigroup and Merrill did but they stayed with him. Now they've forced him out which makes me wonder if something new has happened since then. I wouldn't be shocked if there's not another dividend cut in the cards for WB."

fearsofgun said: "[QUOTE=newguy87;69542]Well looks like Wachovia finally got rid of their CEO Ken Thompson. In a few threads I've been mentioning how I didn't like the management at the bank cause of the acquisitions of Golden West at the peak and high price paid for AG Edwards. Hopefully they'll replace him with someone better but I get the eerie feeling that there's probably some other shoe to drop. If they were gonna get rid of him they could have done it awhile ago like Citigroup and Merrill did but they stayed with him. Now they've forced him out which makes me wonder if something new has happened since then. I wouldn't be shocked if there's not another dividend cut in the cards for WB.[/QUOTE] Thats what I was thinking too. They sure did wait a while until they gave him the boot. Wachovia is one of those banks that I keep seeing pop up around town in unusual locations. I wonder if their spending is a little much for their expected growth."

Techroid said: "I like the Citi leaps for Jan 2010. There close to the current price, but it gives you over a year to work out the problems. Plus, its cheaper than buing all the stock now."