<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Citi profits don&#8217;t signal big payday ahead</title>
	<atom:link href="http://trueslant.com/nancymiller/2009/04/17/citi-profits-dont-signal-big-payday-ahead/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://trueslant.com/nancymiller/2009/04/17/citi-profits-dont-signal-big-payday-ahead/</link>
	<description>Translation by NanceFinance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:19:31 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nancy Miller</title>
		<link>http://trueslant.com/nancymiller/2009/04/17/citi-profits-dont-signal-big-payday-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>Nancy Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:21:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trueslant.com/nancymiller/?p=440#comment-52</guid>
		<description>I thought the question and the answer were hilarious. Ned Kelly was doing his best to be the good boy -- proving that Citibank was not only profitable but that it wasn&#039;t shafting taxpayers. A little late on the latter, don&#039;t you think? I didn&#039;t go into in this post, but Kelly&#039;s responses to most questions were really opaque. He couldn&#039;t come out directly and say every single business unit that involved the consumer had lost ground and that Citi needed to add billions to the loan loss reserves for consumer-related write-downs. That would have made it clear that the bank is far from out of the woods. And the analysts didn&#039;t really call him on it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought the question and the answer were hilarious. Ned Kelly was doing his best to be the good boy &#8212; proving that Citibank was not only profitable but that it wasn&#8217;t shafting taxpayers. A little late on the latter, don&#8217;t you think? I didn&#8217;t go into in this post, but Kelly&#8217;s responses to most questions were really opaque. He couldn&#8217;t come out directly and say every single business unit that involved the consumer had lost ground and that Citi needed to add billions to the loan loss reserves for consumer-related write-downs. That would have made it clear that the bank is far from out of the woods. And the analysts didn&#8217;t really call him on it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jamesohearn</title>
		<link>http://trueslant.com/nancymiller/2009/04/17/citi-profits-dont-signal-big-payday-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator>jamesohearn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:39:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://trueslant.com/nancymiller/?p=440#comment-44</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Citi profits don’t signal big payday ahead&lt;/i&gt;

Since when, in the past decade, has profitability made one iota of difference on to the executive bonus scheme?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Citi profits don’t signal big payday ahead</i></p>
<p>Since when, in the past decade, has profitability made one iota of difference on to the executive bonus scheme?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

