

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A power has risen up in the government greater than
the people themselves, consisting of many and various and powerful
interests, combined into one mass, and held together by the cohesive
power of the vast surplus in the banks.
- John Calhoun, 1836 speech
It
has to be put in perspective. If the employees are called upon to
sacrifice, the customers should sacrifice as well. And to get a feeling
of what Citigroup employees have sacrificed, one has only to see how
the economy has affected them.
Vikram Pandit, the CEO of
Citigroup, and Winfried Bischoff, its chairman, agreed to forego
year-end bonuses. That was especially gracious of Mr. Pandit. When he
joined Citibank a year ago he declined to accept a cash bonus,
accepting instead stock and options worth approximately $30 million, a modest sum for a new CEO, and a sum worth considerably less today, the stock price having declined by 77 percent
during 2008. Citigroup has fallen on such hard times that to its great
embarrassment it was forced to accept $45 billion in federal bailout
funds to preserve itself. (Notwithstanding the bailout it nonetheless
has had to divest itself of some of its assets.) If the executives had
received bonuses they would have come in part from the taxpayer since
Citigroup was not in a position to pay bonuses having had more than $10
billion in losses in 2008. (Mr. Pandit's refusal to accept a bonus was
a welcome contrast to John Stumpf, CEO of Wells Fargo, who refused to
decline a bonus. Wells Fargo received $25 billion
in bailout money. Mr. Stumpf probably felt that since he received so
much less in bailout funds than Citigroup, there was no reason to
decline his bonus even though the taxpayers were paying him for having
led the bank so well that it might have gone out of business but for
the taxpayers' infusion of cash.)
Messrs. Pandit and
Bischoff are not the only Citigroup employees foregoing bonuses.
According to the New York Times, bonuses for its leadership team will
be down by 40 percent in 2008 and Robert Rubin (whom many credit for
Citigroup's recent performance), declined his bonus. (Any pain he felt
was ameliorated by the $126 million he reportedly received during the
period he was with the bank. He resigned this month.)
What
the forgoing demonstrates is that there is enough pain to go around and
that is why Citigroup has given customers the opportunity to share in
the pain of an employee who said
he was a third vice president and changing the rules on bonuses so late
in the game was putting its employees in "financial extremis." It
might, said he, put some employees in the position of being unable to
make their mortgage payments. So as to reassure employees that they
were not the only ones suffering, the bank has changed its rules on
credit cards and interest rates.
As credit card holders
who carry unpaid balances know, most credit card companies reserve the
right to raise interest rates at most any time for most any reason.
When Congress was considering imposition of new rules on credit card
companies in 2007 because of perceived abuses in their practices,
Citigroup told Congress and any of its credit card holders who happened
to be paying attention, that it would forgo the right to raise interest
rates for no reason at all. Instead, it promised that credit card
holders who did not misbehave, as defined by the bank, would not have
their interest rates increased during the life of the card. Realizing
that promises are made to be broken, Citigroup has now changed its
mind. In November it sent out notices to customers advising them that
it was breaking its promise. That was not how it phrased it. What it said was, if the customer had not enjoyed a rate increase in two years, it could expect to enjoy one in January.
At first blush that seems like a promise broken. It is not. What it is is a response to what the bank calls a "difficult market environment." The promised policy was adversely affecting the bank's profits.
John
Carey, the chief administrative officer for the credit card division of
Citigroup, was quoted in the New York Times as saying: "We are carrying
out this repricing in order to continue lending in this environment".
"This environment" is the one in which hundreds of thousands of
homeowners are losing their homes to foreclosures or being forced into
bankruptcy. It would not occur to a non-banker that this is the time to
increase interest rates on credit cards for those who rely on them in
order to continue living in the style to which they have grown
accustomed. It's not all bad, however. Although they may be strapped
financially, those affected by the new policy can pretend that they,
too, are third vice presidents of what's left of Citigroup. That may be
a bit of consolation.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A power has risen up in the government greater than
the people themselves, consisting of many and various and powerful
interests, combined into one mass, and held together by the cohesive
power of the vast surplus in the banks.
- John Calhoun, 1836 speech
It
has to be put in perspective. If the employees are called upon to
sacrifice, the customers should sacrifice as well. And to get a feeling
of what Citigroup employees have sacrificed, one has only to see how
the economy has affected them.
Vikram Pandit, the CEO of
Citigroup, and Winfried Bischoff, its chairman, agreed to forego
year-end bonuses. That was especially gracious of Mr. Pandit. When he
joined Citibank a year ago he declined to accept a cash bonus,
accepting instead stock and options worth approximately $30 million, a modest sum for a new CEO, and a sum worth considerably less today, the stock price having declined by 77 percent
during 2008. Citigroup has fallen on such hard times that to its great
embarrassment it was forced to accept $45 billion in federal bailout
funds to preserve itself. (Notwithstanding the bailout it nonetheless
has had to divest itself of some of its assets.) If the executives had
received bonuses they would have come in part from the taxpayer since
Citigroup was not in a position to pay bonuses having had more than $10
billion in losses in 2008. (Mr. Pandit's refusal to accept a bonus was
a welcome contrast to John Stumpf, CEO of Wells Fargo, who refused to
decline a bonus. Wells Fargo received $25 billion
in bailout money. Mr. Stumpf probably felt that since he received so
much less in bailout funds than Citigroup, there was no reason to
decline his bonus even though the taxpayers were paying him for having
led the bank so well that it might have gone out of business but for
the taxpayers' infusion of cash.)
Messrs. Pandit and
Bischoff are not the only Citigroup employees foregoing bonuses.
According to the New York Times, bonuses for its leadership team will
be down by 40 percent in 2008 and Robert Rubin (whom many credit for
Citigroup's recent performance), declined his bonus. (Any pain he felt
was ameliorated by the $126 million he reportedly received during the
period he was with the bank. He resigned this month.)
What
the forgoing demonstrates is that there is enough pain to go around and
that is why Citigroup has given customers the opportunity to share in
the pain of an employee who said
he was a third vice president and changing the rules on bonuses so late
in the game was putting its employees in "financial extremis." It
might, said he, put some employees in the position of being unable to
make their mortgage payments. So as to reassure employees that they
were not the only ones suffering, the bank has changed its rules on
credit cards and interest rates.
As credit card holders
who carry unpaid balances know, most credit card companies reserve the
right to raise interest rates at most any time for most any reason.
When Congress was considering imposition of new rules on credit card
companies in 2007 because of perceived abuses in their practices,
Citigroup told Congress and any of its credit card holders who happened
to be paying attention, that it would forgo the right to raise interest
rates for no reason at all. Instead, it promised that credit card
holders who did not misbehave, as defined by the bank, would not have
their interest rates increased during the life of the card. Realizing
that promises are made to be broken, Citigroup has now changed its
mind. In November it sent out notices to customers advising them that
it was breaking its promise. That was not how it phrased it. What it said was, if the customer had not enjoyed a rate increase in two years, it could expect to enjoy one in January.
At first blush that seems like a promise broken. It is not. What it is is a response to what the bank calls a "difficult market environment." The promised policy was adversely affecting the bank's profits.
John
Carey, the chief administrative officer for the credit card division of
Citigroup, was quoted in the New York Times as saying: "We are carrying
out this repricing in order to continue lending in this environment".
"This environment" is the one in which hundreds of thousands of
homeowners are losing their homes to foreclosures or being forced into
bankruptcy. It would not occur to a non-banker that this is the time to
increase interest rates on credit cards for those who rely on them in
order to continue living in the style to which they have grown
accustomed. It's not all bad, however. Although they may be strapped
financially, those affected by the new policy can pretend that they,
too, are third vice presidents of what's left of Citigroup. That may be
a bit of consolation.
A power has risen up in the government greater than
the people themselves, consisting of many and various and powerful
interests, combined into one mass, and held together by the cohesive
power of the vast surplus in the banks.
- John Calhoun, 1836 speech
It
has to be put in perspective. If the employees are called upon to
sacrifice, the customers should sacrifice as well. And to get a feeling
of what Citigroup employees have sacrificed, one has only to see how
the economy has affected them.
Vikram Pandit, the CEO of
Citigroup, and Winfried Bischoff, its chairman, agreed to forego
year-end bonuses. That was especially gracious of Mr. Pandit. When he
joined Citibank a year ago he declined to accept a cash bonus,
accepting instead stock and options worth approximately $30 million, a modest sum for a new CEO, and a sum worth considerably less today, the stock price having declined by 77 percent
during 2008. Citigroup has fallen on such hard times that to its great
embarrassment it was forced to accept $45 billion in federal bailout
funds to preserve itself. (Notwithstanding the bailout it nonetheless
has had to divest itself of some of its assets.) If the executives had
received bonuses they would have come in part from the taxpayer since
Citigroup was not in a position to pay bonuses having had more than $10
billion in losses in 2008. (Mr. Pandit's refusal to accept a bonus was
a welcome contrast to John Stumpf, CEO of Wells Fargo, who refused to
decline a bonus. Wells Fargo received $25 billion
in bailout money. Mr. Stumpf probably felt that since he received so
much less in bailout funds than Citigroup, there was no reason to
decline his bonus even though the taxpayers were paying him for having
led the bank so well that it might have gone out of business but for
the taxpayers' infusion of cash.)
Messrs. Pandit and
Bischoff are not the only Citigroup employees foregoing bonuses.
According to the New York Times, bonuses for its leadership team will
be down by 40 percent in 2008 and Robert Rubin (whom many credit for
Citigroup's recent performance), declined his bonus. (Any pain he felt
was ameliorated by the $126 million he reportedly received during the
period he was with the bank. He resigned this month.)
What
the forgoing demonstrates is that there is enough pain to go around and
that is why Citigroup has given customers the opportunity to share in
the pain of an employee who said
he was a third vice president and changing the rules on bonuses so late
in the game was putting its employees in "financial extremis." It
might, said he, put some employees in the position of being unable to
make their mortgage payments. So as to reassure employees that they
were not the only ones suffering, the bank has changed its rules on
credit cards and interest rates.
As credit card holders
who carry unpaid balances know, most credit card companies reserve the
right to raise interest rates at most any time for most any reason.
When Congress was considering imposition of new rules on credit card
companies in 2007 because of perceived abuses in their practices,
Citigroup told Congress and any of its credit card holders who happened
to be paying attention, that it would forgo the right to raise interest
rates for no reason at all. Instead, it promised that credit card
holders who did not misbehave, as defined by the bank, would not have
their interest rates increased during the life of the card. Realizing
that promises are made to be broken, Citigroup has now changed its
mind. In November it sent out notices to customers advising them that
it was breaking its promise. That was not how it phrased it. What it said was, if the customer had not enjoyed a rate increase in two years, it could expect to enjoy one in January.
At first blush that seems like a promise broken. It is not. What it is is a response to what the bank calls a "difficult market environment." The promised policy was adversely affecting the bank's profits.
John
Carey, the chief administrative officer for the credit card division of
Citigroup, was quoted in the New York Times as saying: "We are carrying
out this repricing in order to continue lending in this environment".
"This environment" is the one in which hundreds of thousands of
homeowners are losing their homes to foreclosures or being forced into
bankruptcy. It would not occur to a non-banker that this is the time to
increase interest rates on credit cards for those who rely on them in
order to continue living in the style to which they have grown
accustomed. It's not all bad, however. Although they may be strapped
financially, those affected by the new policy can pretend that they,
too, are third vice presidents of what's left of Citigroup. That may be
a bit of consolation.