<TABLE class=AlternatePost style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>At US$1.02 per share, the market capitalisation of Citigroup stood at US$5.6billion on 5 March 2009. GIC's 11.1% converted stake was reduced to a paltry of US$622 million. This represents a loss of US$6.26billion of the original US$6.88billion.
The market reacted by depreciating the common share price but appreciating the preference share price. This means that the commercially correct action should have been to reject the conversion and to retain the preference shares. Does GIC not claim that it operates solely on commercial principles? What happened to that?
Why did the due diligence not uncover the downside risk adequately? Or is it the case that GIC went ahead with the investment despite the downside risk?
As the collective shareholders, the People are still waiting for a proper account in this transaction. WE ARE NOT AGREEABLE TO JUST WRITE OFF THIS AMOUNT OF BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS.
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: stevewu77 at Sat Mar 07 11:13:04 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The market reacted by depreciating the common share price but appreciating the preference share price. This means that the commercially correct action should have been to reject the conversion and to retain the preference shares. Does GIC not claim that it operates solely on commercial principles? What happened to that?
Why did the due diligence not uncover the downside risk adequately? Or is it the case that GIC went ahead with the investment despite the downside risk?
As the collective shareholders, the People are still waiting for a proper account in this transaction. WE ARE NOT AGREEABLE TO JUST WRITE OFF THIS AMOUNT OF BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS.
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: stevewu77 at Sat Mar 07 11:13:04 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
