> helping to the Empire's stability, of which they are no
> minor pillars and beneficiaries, by buying big chunks
> of US capital IN TROUBLE.
I think it's safe to say that Citigroup isn't by any stretch of the imagination "in trouble" (least of all in ALL CAPS), at least in the way I think is being said here (or in the way they have been in the past, say in 1998). They have profited handsomely over the past few years on the way up, giving some back here at the tail end still leaves them way ahead. They DO face some challenges, notably in management -- they still don't have a Chairman, and the last one wasn't able to run the giant very well -- but with double-digit margins on astronomical revenues, this boat floats. Yes, the stock is under pressure, but I think y'all protesteth too much; as recently as January of this year, the stock is as high as it has ever been. There's lots of good reasons to sell a stock, not all of them having to do with your opinion of the future.
Anyway, my prediction is that they won't have to cut the dividend, but if they do, it'll just make me more interested: it would clear out the last of the unbelievers and make room for more of us to double-up :)
Doug then asks:
> When do all these (growing) foreign claims on the U.S. become
> a sign of weakening rather than evidence of imperial strength?
Well, if you're talking about this current deal, it's not a claim at all: it's non-voting, non-control insider sweet deal. It's just some cash at a critical time (in the news, not actually in the boardroom) that will be seen as a smart move later. By both sides.
/jordan