Since the government didn't insist on stricter terms, Citi is paying a 1 cent dividend. Blame the government for not negotiating stricter terms. If Citi didn't pay the max dividend it could under the terms, its shareholders could sue the board in a shareholder class-action suit for violating their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns.
No, that bit about dividends can't possibly be right. Relatively few public companies pay a dividend, and basically none of the other companies face shareholder lawsuits about the absence of a dividend.
And if Citi were a poorly programmed automaton then it might make sense to avoid blaming its board for politically boneheaded moves; but its board is made up of directors who _ought_ to be spending some energy not pointlessly offending a public on whose dole they now find themselves. The shareholders will be (rightly) for more offended if the board so pisses off Treasury that the public assistance dries up.
I agree, however, that the (then-) government should have negotiated (decreed?) better terms for the bailout money.
>No, that bit about dividends can't possibly be right. Relatively few public companies pay a dividend, and basically none of the other companies face shareholder lawsuits about the absence of a dividend.
Relatively few public companies are in Citi's situation. I wasn't saying all public companies have to a pay a dividend or face a lawsuit. Supposing Citi is practically insolvent, it would be irresponsible (legally/fiduciarily, not morally) to shareholders not to try and launder out as a much money as possible. Once it is paid to shareholders as a dividend, creditors can't go after it.
Comments
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/01/20/ap5943395.html
Since the government didn't insist on stricter terms, Citi is paying a 1 cent dividend. Blame the government for not negotiating stricter terms. If Citi didn't pay the max dividend it could under the terms, its shareholders could sue the board in a shareholder class-action suit for violating their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns.
No, that bit about dividends can't possibly be right. Relatively few public companies pay a dividend, and basically none of the other companies face shareholder lawsuits about the absence of a dividend.
And if Citi were a poorly programmed automaton then it might make sense to avoid blaming its board for politically boneheaded moves; but its board is made up of directors who _ought_ to be spending some energy not pointlessly offending a public on whose dole they now find themselves. The shareholders will be (rightly) for more offended if the board so pisses off Treasury that the public assistance dries up.
I agree, however, that the (then-) government should have negotiated (decreed?) better terms for the bailout money.
>No, that bit about dividends can't possibly be right. Relatively few public companies pay a dividend, and basically none of the other companies face shareholder lawsuits about the absence of a dividend.
Relatively few public companies are in Citi's situation. I wasn't saying all public companies have to a pay a dividend or face a lawsuit. Supposing Citi is practically insolvent, it would be irresponsible (legally/fiduciarily, not morally) to shareholders not to try and launder out as a much money as possible. Once it is paid to shareholders as a dividend, creditors can't go after it.