Talk:Citigroup

Removing promotional material

The following sentence has been snuck into the lead paragraph:
"In 2008, Citigroup was crowned Deal of the Year - Debt Market Deal of the Year at the 2008 ALB SE Asia Law Awards, and Deal of the Year - Equity Market Deal of the Year at the 2008 ALB China Law Awards[10]."
Sourced to: "www.legalbusinessonline.com.au" (very dubious as it's a blogsite hosted by an Australian SEO Search engine optimization company.)

Accolades and Awards (if not fictious) should be placed in a seperate section if relevant.

Looks like Km206 has been quite a busy boy spamming that SEO hosted blogsite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Km2065
He's added it to hundreds of other articles now. 121.44.25.129 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)FredK

April 7, 1998

Citigroup... was formed from one of the world's largest mergers in history by combining the banking giant Citicorp and financial conglomerate Travelers Group on April 7, 1998

Sounds incorrect: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, passed in 1999, allowed the merger to occur... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.53.121 (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: Where is the Y ?

The Bank was originally the "National City Bank of New York", as seen in the articly. This can be neatly shortened to "Citybank". But it was shortened to "Citibank". Does anyone have an explanaition for that ? I'm puzzled. This is what they have to say:

"1976 - The First National City Corporation holding company changes its name to Citicorp to better suit its global businesses."

Source: Citigroup Website

I suppose they refer to the shortening of the name and dropping of "national" as better suiting, as i can not conceive how the y>i-change should make any change in citicorps global businesses. I would greatly appreciate an answer. Thank you in advance.--83.189.43.162 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

also interested.-- ExpImp^talkcon 12:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Y is at www.citybank.com a bank founded in 1974 two years before Citcorp renamed it's bank.

i think it's just an aesthetic choice, and that it's also to give it more of a proper name than "city bank". this way it's not the group/bank of a city, but rather just citibank as a whole name.24.232.74.200 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is closer to the truth about the "Y"

Just MHO, but it has seemed since the Vietnam War that American companies wishing to expand around the world will often drop the English (or rather the American) spelling of their names. This is done, I believe, in the hopes of doing business with the large anti-American segment of European society while still leaving the name sounding phonetically correct to Americans. They pay large salaries to people with Phd's to work out the psychology of this stuff. It's really sad. Do I have proof? No, they wouldn't dare admit it. After all, us war-mongering Americans wouldn't like our largest financial institution trying to distance itself from us. It's just the opinion of someone who has watched America closely since the early 1950s.75.164.145.249 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)dwargo

It's because "Citybank" is very confusing. Is it a name? Does it refer to some city's bank? Do I translate it? Bancocuidad? Cuidadbanco? Can I even trademark "City Bank"? Can I start a private postal service called "Local Post Office"? Can I do that in Bangladesh?

Given Europeans' (and Asians') love for everything American, from Apple Inc, Dell, Microsoft and IBM to McDonald's, Burger King, Pizza Hut and Starbucks, I must posit that you are incorrect.

Regards, A European living in Asia who has had citigroup as a customer while working for a large US company.

--GavinZac (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Much more closer to the truth

The Citi in citibank referes to the Citi of London (the british wall street). Many of the National city bank of new york where contributors of the citi's economy and because of that the bankers of the National city bank of new york themselves dare to call it citibank in semi-ironic maner. You can read here List of Chief Executives of Citigroup that Moses Taylor started to call it citibank in a non official reference to the bank. The british where in charge of the bank in a certain sense and because of that it was called citibank. You can listen abouth this in a at the middle of this video (part of a internet documentary called UROKO): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tczV8bKSErk&feature=related

Z or S for organization

Organization is spelled with a Z, not an S. This is an American corporation we're talking about, and so it's completely appropriate to write with American spellings.

I hope the ghost of Noah Webster haunts any American who changes the spelling to "organisation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chartreuse 1986 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 June 2007

How is this an "American" organization? It used to be, but when the single largest shareholder (between 60 and 70 percent) is Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, it makes it a Saudi Organisation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.126.119 (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been a long time since this has been an "American" company. It may have it's headquarters in NY, but that doesn't make it an "American" company.75.164.145.249 (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)dwargo

It's an American company because it was formed in America, as well as it's headquarters is located in the US. Oh and "single largest shareholder (between 60 and 70 percent) is Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia" isn't true. Quit pulling garbage out of your ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.83.213 (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Business issues

For the criticisms section, it seems like its getting very long. Could we fork the section to "Business Issues at Citigroup"? Mbisanz (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to delete most of this section, until reliable sources are provided. Much of it is original research, and the parts that aren't lack any sort of references. All controversial content must provide reliable sources per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and a criticisms section is very controversial by nature. In addition, it has been tagged as "Unreferenced" since August 2006.
--JKeene (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Citicorp Overseas Software Ltd

COSL merged with OrbiTech. Then OrbiTech changed to Polaris. The shareholders' document shows 22% share owned by Citicorp, 20% share owned by OrbiTech A/c Citicorp. Polaris 99.225.137.120 (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Size of the company

From the opening paragraph: "According to Forbes Global 2000 in March 2007, it was the largest company in the world" - yes, but this year it didn't make the top 20. If this source is to be used, it should be the most recent data. Thought it was better to remove it altogether. Wilston (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely better to pull it from the opening paragraph if it's no longer the case. A full explanation of this is a bit too much for a lead section, and should be saved for later in the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Assets

It says that the assets are 2.91 trillion, yet there is no link to that number being cited. Where is that number coming from? 67.184.83.213 (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

See the footnotes to the infobox. I believe it comes from their SEC filings as quoted on Google Finance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent Acquisitions

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America#History_since_1998, that lists recent acquisitions by Bank of America.

Have the recent acquisitions by Citigroup been listed here? I thought they have made a couple of more major acquisitions recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.11.239 (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Contributions to Global Warming

I'm new to the whole wiki code thing and I was very upset when I learned there was nothing in the criticisms section about Citigroup's current investment with coal mining and destroying the appalachians. I added some information about it from RAM.org and boston.com and was trying to get the reference thingermebobs working when it was removed. Why was it removed? Could anyone help me amend this apparent lack of important information? Here is what was edited out, part of it was at the top to warn people about their actions and I was in the process of creating a criticisms section.

"Currently Citigroup along with Bank of America is funding the contruction of 150 new coal plants in the United States supplied by coal from mountain-mining the appalachians, effectively adding 100 million cars worth of air pollution within a year along with toxic mercury contamination. All ready about 500 appalachian mountains have been decapitated."

http://ran.org/fileadmin/materials/global_finance/publications/Banks_Climate_Change_and_US_Coal_Rush.pdf http://ran.org/campaigns/global_finance/spotlight/coal_is_over_fund_the_future/ http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/16/banks_are_urged_not_to_finance_coal_power/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSwashy (talk • contribs) 01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Or you guys can let companies do whatever they want on wikipedia cause they're rich, thats cool too. Damage control guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSwashy (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have to suggest that you read the help section before starting to smear the site with global warming talk. Wikipedia articles don't exist to criticize anyone. It's not going to benefit Wikipedia by posting biased information from websites with an absolute agenda that are against the topic in question. Woods01 (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

citigroup logo on this posting

The logo that is currently posted on this page is no longer the Citigroup logo. The "red" umbrella was sold back to Travelers, the new logo is simply a red arch. 66.77.129.3 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)lynne Barnard 11/26/200866.77.129.3 (talk)

Need to reiterate that the logo shown on this page is no longer accurate for Citigroup. This needs to be changed to the correct logo which can be seen at http://www.citigroup.com/ Buddhahat (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Jerry Blanton 03/04/09

That is definitely true. Could you change the logo or ask another user to do it? 67.171.172.44 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't now how to change the logo, but if you could show me how or give me a link to somewhere in Wikipedia that shows you how to do it, I could change it. 67.171.172.44 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Cardholder rate increases

I think a good addition should be about the Jan 31st rate increase for all it's card holders (they claim 20% of holders only, but find a holder not jacked by them) some people are seeing 400% or more increase and finance charges, back calculated by 3 months.

Even better there is video of the CEO before congress saying " We will not voluntarily increase the rates or fees on the account until the card expires ... the only reason we would consider increasing the rates or fees before the card expires would be if a cardholder pays Citi late, exceeds the credit limit, or pays with a check that bounces."

76.181.173.128 (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a cardholder (two cards actually) and my rates have not increased so I suggest that the "find a cardholder not jacked by them" challenge has been met. Docdave (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

They just declared bankruptcy. Has this already been added to the article, and I just missed it? 98.89.19.39 (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

CIT Group declared bankruptcy, not Citigroup. Unless they also declared bankruptcy, but I haven't seen any news of that today. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could add a "Not to be confused with CIT group, another large financial services company." similar to the "Not to be confused with Citigroup, another large financial services company" on the CIT group page? I've seen dozens of confusions today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.154.229 (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I added it. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hackers steal millions?

I keep hearing on the news that "hackers in Russia" have stolen millions of dollars (Wall Street Journal) from Citigroup, according to the FBI, and that Citigroup is denying that it happened. Why is there nothing yet in the article about this incredible controversy? David spector (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Plutonomy Memo

Should the Plutonomy Memo be in here anywhere?--Dana60Cummins (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. In the Criticisms section. --Why is pizza so good? (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Updates (July 2010)

Once upon a time (2006?) I had the time/youth to get this article in pretty good shape. Sadly, it seems of have drifted by the wayside, no doubt helped along its way by the sheer quantity of Citi-related information that has developed over the last couple of years. However, there are lots of elements that are presently woefully inaccurate/out of date, particularly in the areas I've just flagged. Sadly working 70 hour weeks mean I don't have the time to make these sorts of updates any more, but if someone more committed out there feels like doing something useful, a cursory trip to citi.com could probably get everything pretty accurately up to speed in not too long a time... DJR (T) 04:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Revamp Needed

Hello guys. Completely agree with above user. A major clean-up of the article is needed in order to improve its quality and bring it up to speed with recent events. I added an "Organization" section to show how the company is now organized. I kept the "Divisions" section for now although it should be edited at some point in the future as the information is now dated. The UBS article was nicely re-written for example, so I urge users to kindly assist in improving this important article. Doge120 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks. I can't edit, as I'm an employee, but FYI... Along the lines of Doge120's comment, Global Wealth Management was dissolved after the sale of Smith Barney to the joint venture between Morgan Stanley and Citi. Citi Private Bank and Citi Investment Research & Analysis have both been moved into Citi's Institutional Clients Group. Best... Dphussey (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Goal: no more dead links; general vote for updating; & kudos

I came here today because I saw the page had a, or some, dead link/s. I was able to rid the article of the two in-text-citation dead links by finding alternatives. (The second is just a hair shaky, switching from IHTribune to NYTimes and with a number-change (supported in the first paragraph) in the headline. I think/hope it's ok but there are quite a number of points where the footnote is used, if someone wanted to check them against the new source. In further support of my hope/thought, I'll add that the new link had the same writer, the same date, and the two papers are co-owned.)

With that as background, I recommend dropping the corporate press-release references at the bottom of the article (dated 2003-05) in Citigroup#References section (regular footnotes are in Citigroup#Notes). A couple of the releases are already identified as dead links. Another came up dead for me (October 20, 2003, audio I think, SWeill mentioned). From what I can see, the corporate website only goes back to 2007, at this archive Investor Relations page. They're maybe dropping old ones on a rolling basis. In any event, none of the ones in the article are supported off that page and I expect they're all dead. And I don't really see their value as raw sources, unconnected to anything in the text. Maybe if SWeill were still in there, but he's not. So I'd say cut them all, and would recommend no more. Then we could move this article off the dead-link roster.

I did do some updating, under history, in light of the "revamp"ing talk here, and the tag at the top of the article. And I add my vote for more of it, in general.

Finally, I did a fair amount in the public/governmental relations section some time ago, created it I think, and was wonderfully gratified to find (and LINK TO!) today Richard F. Hohlt, now with his own Wiki article. I remember being intrigued when I first added him to the article, here, via the Times (often my source). It's so good to see (someone else at) Wiki having taken that next step. The one-shot User:Spramh6, yet. Kudos. Swliv (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the outdated corporate press-release links; hopefully the end of dead links for now. Swliv (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nukes

I added...

=== Nuclear power ===

Citigroup shares, on par with Barclays, the second and third place as biggest bank in the nuclear sector with over € 11,4 billion in investments. BNP Paribas is according to Profundo number one, with over then € 13,5 billion .

...twice to this page, but User:Fat&Happy has deleted it, also twice, first as "rm not reliably sourced" and then as "no reliable secondary sources establishing the facts as being a noteworthy criticism (or even noteworthy for any reason))"

The fact that Citigroup is the world's second bank behind nuclear seems certainly noteworthy to me, and it is well sourced to BankWatch and Profundo, so I don't really see Fat&Happy's argument. Thus some second opinions are welcomed. -- eiland (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And it doesn't seem noteworthy to me. So what? Whether either of us thinks it is noteworthy doesn't matter one whit. What reliable secondary sources have written about this as being a noteworthy criticism or controversy. Or, from the other side, a noteworthy accomplishment? The only source cited is a web site apparently self-published by a special-interest advocacy group. As presented, it's a marginally sourced fact(?) of no demonstrated encyclopedic interest. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Since when is there a wp policy that a source need to be referenced by secondary sources? Its research done by a professional research bureau, commissioned by a, as you call it, special interest advocacy group. So what. I was about to paste their sources, but it would be unappropriate on this page, as it is 25Kb of text. To put it in the WP page with a reference to BankTrack and or Profundo is all we can do. Or... ah... so you dont agree it is critizism, ok Ill put it in an other section -- eiland (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The policy is the undue weight portion of NPOV – oversimplified, that things should be covered in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. You have supplied no indication of such coverage. Adding a new section on "Investment portfolio" for a $2 trillion financial institution, with its sole content being an unreliably sourced claim about its rank as an investor in one randomly selected industry and no indication that this fact has received major coverage is a clear example of undue weight. And saying there are reliable sources for the statements is not the same as providing verifiable sources. The advocacy group's own statement on the methodology indicates all sorts of guesswork and assumptions, and also clearly demonstrates that the characterization of the total amounts as "investments" is inaccurate. I'm tired of typing all the things wrong with this addition, so that's all for now. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight is about viewpoints, I don't see how to add the the (considerable size) of their nuclear portfolio can be seen as a 'viewpoint'. I assume that as the article on Citi continues to grow, also other sectors will be added to the portfolio section, and then to start with a 13bn item seems to be reasonable to me. About the relevance of the source, the whole thing about references is that readers of Wikipedia can then judge by themselves if they will accept the fact by looking at the source. We can not do that for them. Also, see [1], seems not so marginal a research bureau to me. And yes, they are guesstimates, so? Lets add that to the § and make the article grow. -- 07:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Does anyone think the lead is way too long??? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it, but now that you bring it up, yes. Skimming over briefly for now, the third and fourth paragraphs seem bloated with details of what at the time, I'm sure, were fascinating recent developments but should probably be trimmed a couple of years later. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)