back to article Citi rubbishes Nasdaq compensation offer for Facebook IPOcalypse

Citigroup has let the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) know that it is not happy with the Nasdaq stock exchange's offer of $62m compensation for the Facebook IPOcalypse. Citi went to town on how badly it thinks Nasdaq mishandled the first day of Facebook trading in a 17-page letter to SEC yesterday, published [PDF] by …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. g e

    Not compared of course

    To what they lost since as Failbook marches ever onward toward a more realistic valuation.

    Not like anyone forced those Citi clowns to buy the rubbish in the first place.

    1. Figgus

      Re: Not compared of course

      That was my thinking exactly. The losses from the glitches are miniscule compared to the losses from the overhyped stock itself.

      Ohh, I think I see the difference: the glitches cost them their OWN money, not just the money of their clients. Batards.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Boo hoo

    We didn't manage to milk quite as many millions that morning as we normally do, playing with other peoples' money.

    Go and get a REAL job MAKING SOMETHING, or DOING SOMETHING useful.

  3. stanimir

    I suppose they bought and wanted to resell it when price climbed up a bit during the 1st day... or they canceled pending orders that were in effect executed later on some arbitrary price.

  4. Pete 2 Silver badge

    One man's ceiling

    > Citi should be entitled to recover all of its losses attributable to Nasdaq's gross negligence

    It's often said that every share transaction has a winner and a loser. Either the buyer paid too much, or the seller let it go too cheaply - there's no such thing as a "fair" trade. So on that premise, if Ctitgroup made a loss, it's reasonable to conclude that someone else gained from those faulty transactions.

    Presumably NASDAQ is in a position to know who the other parties were in all the trades that Citigroup is wailing about. If they are therefore required to compensate Citigroup for their losses, shouldn't they have an equal case to recoup those "mistaken" profits from the other side?

    Alternatively, if Citigroup feel so hard done by, by a few random glitches that could equally have worked in their favour, it may be that they're simply not cut out for the hurly-burly of the stock market.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: One man's ceiling

      > It's often said that every share transaction has a winner and a loser.

      Can't agree with that. One wants to sell for good reasons, the other wants to buy for good reasons. Both win.

  5. Efros
    Thumb Down

    Somewhat ironic

    citigroup whining about a single fuck up, considering they were a major TARP beneficiary, a result of years of fuck ups!

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      "Somewhat ironic?" Unbelievable chutzpah!


      Basically Citigroup is a laundromat for shifting taxpayer money (directly or via inflation) to vested interests. Win across the board, except for the proles.

      "Stripped of its lofty promises, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 will not backstop your 401(k), encourage lenders to crawl out of their bunker, resuscitate an economy on life support, or turn a profit for the hapless taxpayer. Its primary mission in life is to rescue "the chosen ones" — Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase. The early returns are promising. On Thursday, September 18, the financial establishment was coming unhinged. By early afternoon, the combined market values of the five companies had shriveled to $360 billion. That night DC's power brokers — Paulson, Bernanke, Cox, Pelosi, Frank, et al. — concocted their shameless scheme. As of last Friday's close, the Chosen Ones tacked on $137 billion in market value for a 38% gain while the rest of the market, as measured by the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Index, lost $634 billion, or 5.6%." (

      They whole upper porkrind should be airdropped over the Congo to fend for themselves. One AK and a diet sausage for each.

      1. LaeMing

        A little unfair!

        The real people who live in the Congo don't deserve that!

        1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

          Re: A little unfair!

          .. nor do the sausages ..

  6. Naughtyhorse

    a series of hasty, self-interested and high-risk business decisions

    interesting point...

    does that mean i can get all the money i've given propping up the uk's banks back now?


    what about nao??

    fucking grow a pair!

  7. Tom 13

    The Bard put it best over 450 years ago;

    "A plague o' both your houses!"

  8. Andrew Moore

    Oh boo-hoo-hoo. Rich bastards didn't get any richer and now it's someone else's fault.

  9. simlb

    Golden rule of gambling

    Never bet more than you can affored to lose.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Ta series of hasty, self-interested and high-risk business decisions"

    they speak about their own decisions, presumably, when they bought, and swallowed, the tale of fabulous profits to be had on facebook float?

  11. toadwarrior

    Don't give them any compensation and tell them to suck it up.

  12. dssf

    I LOVE Brit Humor....


    Brit Humor is one reason I keep coming back to El Reg. Wildly personally entertaining for me.

    Thanks, El Reg!

    Keep it comin'....

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022