Is Dow Component GE the Victim of Wall Street’s Dark Conflicts?

General Electric's Five-Year Stock Chart

General Electric’s Five-Year Stock Chart (Source:

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: February 27, 2018

MarketWatch’s Tomi Kilgore reported on February 13, 2018 that JPMorgan analyst Stephen Tusa “became even more bearish” on General Electric (which has been a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since its creation in 1896). Kilgore reports further that the JPMorgan analyst had “slashed his stock price target to $14” from his previous target of $16. Only Deutsche Bank’s stock analyst, John Inch, says Kilgore, has a lower target, at $13.

JPMorgan, along with all of the other major Wall Street firms, is still allowed to issue research ratings on stocks despite the firms being charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2003 in the epic research scandal on Wall Street.

Yesterday morning, as the Dow was on its way to closing up a whopping 399 points, GE plunged to a nickel below the JPMorgan analyst’s prediction, touching an intraday low of $13.95.

JPMorgan knows a lot about GE because it was part of a syndicate of Wall Street banks that raised $8.7 billion for GE just last May in a Euro bond. Other Wall Street firms in the syndicate included Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank and others.

In addition to being able to issue analyst stock ratings on GE and dozens of other companies and significantly benefit financially from debt underwritings that bury a company deeper and deeper under debt, these same Wall Street firms are permitted to trade shares of GE (and hundreds of other stocks) in their own internal Dark Pools – effectively unregulated stock exchanges inside the firms.

According to the slim amount of Dark Pool data that is released three weeks after the fact by Wall Street’s self regulator, FINRA, both JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank, the firms with the low-price targets on GE, have been actively trading GE stock in their Dark Pools.

We looked at the weekly FINRA data since December 25, 2017 up to the most recent data provided for the week of February 5, 2018. During that period, the most active week for Dark Pool trading in GE was the week of January 15, 2018. Dark Pools traded a total of 108.2 million shares of GE that week in 295,671 separate trades. JPMorgan has two Dark Pools – JPM-X and JPB-X, the latter created just last year. During the week of January 15, 2018, JPM-X traded 9.4 million shares of GE in 21,956 separate trades; JPB-X traded 701,809 shares of GE in 5,751 separate trades. Deutsche Bank’s Super-X (which ran afoul of regulators in 2016) traded 4.7 million shares of GE that week in 16,058 separate trades.

The two largest Dark Pools trading GE for the week of January 15, 2018 were those owned by UBS (UBS ATS) and Credit Suisse (Crossfinder). UBS settled charges with the SEC over its Dark Pool in 2015; Credit Suisse settled with the SEC over Crossfinder in 2016.  For the week of January 15, 2018, UBS ATS traded 23.3 million GE shares in 71,318 separate trades while Credit Suisse’s Crossfinder traded 13.3 million shares in 41,107 separate trades.

But we don’t know if all of that volume at UBS and Credit Suisse actually originated at their own firms. According to the Rule 606 form filed by JPMorgan with the SEC for the fourth quarter of 2017 (the most recent data available), it is routing almost as much trading to itself as it is to UBS and Credit Suisse. The data shows that for New York Stock Exchange listed shares, it sent 9.44 percent of those shares to itself; 6.44 percent to UBS; and 5.74 percent to Credit Suisse. The New York Stock Exchange only received 4.61 percent of JPMorgan’s trades with the balance distributed to myriad other venues.

Did the shares of GE that were re-routed by JPMorgan to UBS and Credit Suisse end up in the Dark Pools of those firms? We can’t say. But we can ask one critical question: why would JPMorgan send trades to its two competitors instead of to the regulated New York Stock Exchange?

What Was JPMorgan Doing in its Dark Pools During the 2,000-Point Plunge Week?

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: February 26, 2018

FINRA-SEC-CONGRESS As Monkeys Unable to Deal With the Problem Of High Frequency TradingOn Monday, February 5 and again on Thursday, February 8, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed the day with more than 1,000-point losses. We decided it might be instructive to see what JPMorgan’s Dark Pools were up to that week now that the three-week old data has been released by the self-regulator FINRA. We’ll get to that shortly, but first some necessary background.

Dark Pools are effectively unregulated stock exchanges that operate in darkness inside Wall Street’s largest firms. If you have been following the past decade of criminal felony counts for colluding in market rigging and multi-billion dollar fines for abusing the public against these same firms, you might be forgiven for thinking that Federal regulators have lost their minds to allow these same firms to operate Dark Pools. But it’s actually worse than it first appears: not only are JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks trading stocks in darkness, but they’re being allowed to trade the shares of their own bank in these Dark Pools, as well as that of their peer banks.

And, it’s even worse than all that. In addition to trading the bank stocks of their competitor Wall Street banks with whom they have major derivative exposure and engage in underwriting syndicates, they are also allowed to issue buy, sell and hold stock research reports on their competitor banks, despite all of the major Wall Street firms being charged with fraudulent or deceptive research practices by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2003.

To give the weak appearance that the public has some insight into what’s going on in these Dark Pools, FINRA – the deeply conflicted self-regulator – began reporting three-week old trading data to the public on June 2, 2014. But the data is lumped together for the entire week. It doesn’t show any individual day’s data; it doesn’t show what time the trades were made. So, for example, if an investigative reporter or scholar wanted to see if trades were bunched at the open or close of trading in order to manipulate the markets, that’s impossible to do. If public investigators wanted to see if a Dark Pool did heavy buying in its own stock during a period of the trading day when its share price was plunging, that’s also impossible to do.

After the stock market collapse in 1929, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee conducted an extensive investigation over three years into the trading practices on Wall Street. (No such intensive trading investigation was conducted after the 2008 Wall Street crash.) Much of the Senate investigations of the early 1930s focused on the dirty dealings of “Pools,” now reincarnated as Dark Pools. The Senate report found the following:

“A pool, according to stock exchange officials, is an agreement between several people, usually more than three, to actively trade in a single security. The investigation has shown that the purpose of a pool generally is to raise the price of a security by concerted activity on the part of the pool members, and thereby to enable them to unload their holdings at a profit upon the public attracted by the activity or by information disseminated about the stock. Pool operations for such a purpose are incompatible with the maintenance of a free and uncontrolled market.”

The report noted further:

“The testimony before the Senate subcommittee again and again demonstrated that the activity fomented by a pool creates a false and deceptive appearance of genuine demand for the security on the part of the purchasing public and attracts persons relying upon this misleading appearance to make purchases. By this means the pool is enabled to unload its holdings upon an unsuspecting public.”

The Senate Banking Committee of 1934 concluded as follows:

“The conclusion is inescapable that members of the organized exchanges who had a participation in or managed pools, while simultaneously acting as brokers for the general public, were representing irreconcilable interests and attempting to discharge conflicting functions. Yet the stock exchange authorities could perceive nothing unethical in this situation.”

Given that background, consider the following. During the week of February 5, 2018 that saw the two separate 1,000+ point plunges in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, JPMorgan Chase – which is one of the 30 stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and has been charged with three criminal felony counts in the past four years — was operating two Dark Pools. One is called JPM-X. That dark pool traded 222,220 shares of JPMorgan Chase’s own stock in 1,567 separate trades.

But according to Reuters, last year on July 17, JPMorgan Chase started an additional Dark Pool it called JPB-X. That Dark Pool had a very peculiar plan. According to Reuters, JPB-X would allow JPMorgan’s clients to “use the bank’s algorithms to buy or sell stocks at a benchmark price reached over a period of time.” (If you think that’s a squirrely concept for fair and accurate price discovery in a stock market, you’re not off base.)

During the week of February 5 that saw the two 1,000-point plunges in the Dow, JPB-X traded 92,364 shares of JPMorgan Chase stock in a total of 954 separate trades. If you add the two JPMorgan Dark Pool trades together, that 2,521 times in one week that JPMorgan engaged in trading its own stock. (Other banks also traded in their own stocks that week. We looked specifically at JPMorgan Chase because it’s the only U.S. bank with 3 criminal felonies that it has admitted to.)

If you are trying to figure out why the retail investor has lost confidence in Wall Street, look no further than how these Dark Pools are allowed to operate by their so-called regulators.

Related Articles:

Another Wall Street Inside Job?: Stock Buybacks Carried Out in Dark Pools

Citadel’s Dark Pool: SEC Draws a Dark Curtain Around Its Operations

Wall Street Journal Reporter: “The Entire United States Market Has Become One Vast Dark Pool”

Goldman Sachs’ Very Fishy Dark Pool Settlement With FINRA

After Charges of Running a Price Fixing Cartel on Nasdaq in the 90s, Wall Street Banks Are Now Trading Their Own Stocks in Darkness

Puerto Rico – Here’s Why the New York Fed Does Not Feel Your Pain

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: February 24, 2018

William C. (Bill) Dudley, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York

William C. Dudley, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York

On Thursday, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, William C. Dudley, held a press conference to effectively tell Puerto Ricans to suck it up as they attempt to recover from an epic humanitarian crisis caused by Hurricane Maria, which devastated infrastructure and wiped out electricity to the entire Island in September.

When it comes to corrupt Wall Street banks that are in the process of failing, the Federal Reserve can always find trillions of dollars to funnel into the banks’ coffers at almost zero interest rates to prop them back up. It does that through its power to electronically create money out of thin air. Take, for example, the $16 trillion it secretly lavished on Wall Street banks and their foreign counterparts during the financial crash of 2007 to 2010.

For deviant banks and their shareholders, the Federal Reserve has a big heart, great sympathy and big purse strings. When it comes to the human suffering of Americans, it consistently turns its back.

Consider how Dudley’s predecessor at the New York Fed, Tim Geithner, handled the housing crisis created by Wall Street banks. According to Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, in his book Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street, this is what happened: the Fed created HAMP, ostensibly a program to provide housing relief to humans but it was secretly a delay mechanism to help the banks. Barofsky wrote in his book:

“For a good chunk of our allotted meeting time, Elizabeth Warren grilled Geithner about HAMP, barraging him with questions about how the program was going to start helping home owners. In defense of the program, Geithner finally blurted out, ‘We estimate that they can handle ten million foreclosures, over time,’ referring to the banks. ‘This program will help foam the runway for them.’

“A lightbulb went on for me.  Elizabeth had been challenging Geithner on how the program was going to help home owners, and he had responded by citing how it would help the banks. Geithner apparently looked at HAMP as an aid to the banks, keeping the full flush of foreclosures from hitting the financial system all at the same time. Though they could handle up to ‘10 million foreclosures’ over time, any more than that, or if the foreclosures were too concentrated, and the losses that the banks might suffer on their first and second mortgages could push them into insolvency, requiring yet another round of TARP bailouts. So HAMP would ‘foam the runway’ by stretching out the foreclosures, giving the banks more time to absorb losses while the other parts of the bailouts juiced bank profits that could then fill the capital holes created by housing losses.”

Dudley was speaking about Puerto Rico on Thursday because it is part of the Federal Reserve’s Second District covered by the New York Fed. That includes New York State, the 12 northern counties of New Jersey, Fairfield County in Connecticut, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Dudley offered this:

“Puerto Rico now must not only complete the recovery from the hurricane, but also do what is necessary to get on a sustainable economic and fiscal path.  Given the Island’s high debt, unfunded pension obligations, declining population, and now the hurricane, the outlook may seem grim…”

But instead of the cold hard cash the corrupt banks got funneled to them to bail them out, Dudley promised devastated Puerto Ricans only advice:

“The New York Fed will continue to help in the best ways we can—by providing independent research and analysis, and by leveraging our convening authority to bring together stakeholders to share expertise, explore opportunities, and provide information to those who need it most.”

It’s tough for Dudley to feel the pain of Americans who lost their homes through fraudulent foreclosures by the banks he oversees or families rendered homeless in Puerto Rico from an epic hurricane. According to statistics in the 2016 annual report from the Federal Reserve (see Table 13), Dudley’s annual salary at that time was $469,500. And, as we previously reported in 2012, Dudley’s wife, Ann Darby, was set to receive $190,000 per year until 2021 in deferred compensation from JPMorgan Chase, a bank regulated by Dudley whose CEO, Jamie Dimon, was simultaneously sitting on the Board of Directors of the New York Fed.

The day before Dudley held his press conference on Puerto Rico this past week, Kate Aronoff was explaining to readers at The Intercept how Citigroup, another serially charged Wall Street bank overseen by the New York Fed, had profited by burying Puerto Rico under debt and would now be overseeing the privatization of its public electric utility. Aronoff wrote:

“The bank has profited elsewhere on the island, as well. Citi was among the underwriters of eight capital appreciation bonds, or CABs, and the lead underwriter on five of those. The principal on all eight CABs totaled $2.7 billion, though interest on them — charged at a whopping rate of 718 percent — came to $22.8 billion. The bank was also the second-largest underwriter in Puerto Rico of so-called scoop and toss financing deals, which — while allowing bond issuers to push payments off into the future — also means heaping additional fees and interest onto preexisting principal and interest payments. From 2000 to 2016, the bank collected $302 million in fees off underwriting $11.3 billion in scoop and toss arrangements, the second largest of any collection off these type of deals.”

The Fed’s generosity to Citigroup, which has been serially charged by regulators for abusing the public and became a felony bank in 2015, stands in stark contrast to the crumbs of advice offered to Puerto Rico. During the financial crisis which Citigroup played a major role in creating, the U.S. Treasury provided $45 billion in capital to Citigroup; the government guaranteed over $300 billion of Citigroup’s assets; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) guaranteed $5.75 billion of its senior unsecured debt and $26 billion of its commercial paper and interbank deposits; and the Federal Reserve secretly sluiced $2.5 trillion in almost zero-interest, cumulative loans to Citigroup from the end of 2007 through at least mid 2010.

According to a poll released late last year, a majority of Americans believe this is the lowest point in our nation’s history. But will this be enough to create the political revolution that Senator Bernie Sanders had hoped for in 2016.

An Open Message to Parkland Students: Don’t Underestimate the Enemy

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: February 22, 2018 

Robert Schentrup Asking a Question at CNN Town Hall,  February 21, 2018

Robert Schentrup Asking a Question at CNN Town Hall, February 21, 2018

Carmen Schentrup would have celebrated her 17th birthday yesterday had she not been gunned down in a hail of bullets from an AR-15 semi-automatic assault weapon on February 14 at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida by an expelled student who had bought the gun legally when he was just 18 years old. Last evening her brother, Robert, appeared at a CNN Town Hall that was convened to discuss the shooting. He posed the following question to Congressman Ted Deutch who was present at the Town Hall:

“If a majority of Americans have long supported stricter gun control regulations, but our elected officials who are supposed to represent the people have done nothing, does this mean that our democracy is broken?”

Congressman Deutch, a Democrat who does support strong gun laws, told the anguished young man that our democracy is “a little broken.”

But our democracy is not a little bit broken. Our democracy is a wistful relic of a bygone era when corporations and Super Pacs and billionaires could not outspend the average American in elections by staggering amounts of money. For example, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the hedge fund, Renaissance Technologies, gave $16.5 million to support the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign in 2016 while it was also the number one contributor to the Donald Trump campaign with $15.5 million. No matter who wins the Oval Office, the American people lose.

The same is true in Congress. If the NRA doesn’t own your elected voice, Wall Street does; or Big Oil does; or Big Pharma does.

Despite the wide publicity of the San Bernardino, California shooting on December 2, 2015 where 14 people were killed and 22 injured, the very next day the U.S. Senate rejected a bill to tighten background checks on those attempting to buy a gun. Not long after 20 young children and 6 adults were gunned down by a lone assailant at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut the U.S. Senate also rejected tighter background check legislation.

The Parkland, Florida shooting left 14 students and 3 adults dead. It marks the 30th mass shooting in just the first 45 days of 2018. And yet Congress allows the AR-15 and other assault weapons to be sold to civilians in the United States – in many states to teenagers as young as 18.

Yes, there are still a small number of moral members of Congress who continue to work for and fight for the American people. But even they have been sold out by the corrupted two-party system that will not allow an uncompromised voice to become President or rise to a position of power in Congress. Nothing better underscores this than how Senator Bernie Sanders was deviously undermined in his presidential primary efforts by the Democratic National Committee.

The unrelenting mass shooting of our nation’s children is the most tragic and emotionally devastating example of a perverted and grotesque campaign financing system where only corporate interests or those of the billionaires have a voice in our government. But the next generation is not only going to suffer from the lifelong effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from mass shootings in what were once considered safe spaces in our country, but their environment is also being destroyed by the climate change deniers in Congress who are funded by Big Oil.

And look at what happened after the worst economic collapse in the United States since the Great Depression. Not one executive of any major Wall Street firm that caused the financial crash in 2008 through fraudulent activities was prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department — which was headed at the time by law partners from Covington & Burling – the Big Tobacco law firm that was singled out in a Federal Court decision for hiding the deadly effects of cigarette smoke for decades. How did those Covington & Burling lawyers get those jobs? They got those jobs because President Obama outsourced the staffing of his administration to an executive of Citigroup, Michael Froman, while the bank was both insolvent and receiving the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history as a result of its corrupt behavior.

The financial crash has also left a deep and tragic emotional toll on Americans. It cost 8.7 million Americans their jobs; 10 million families lost their homes, many through illegal foreclosures; and it wiped out almost half of the wealth of middle class families compared to 2001. And just look at who has grotesquely benefited from that. President Obama named Jack Lew, a former executive from the very division of Citigroup that had tanked the firm, to be his Treasury Secretary. President Trump named Steve Mnuchin, a foreclosure king, to be his Treasury Secretary. Both Presidents named lawyers who had extensive ties to representing Wall Street to head its top cop, the Securities and Exchange Commission. Despite both Democrat and Republican Party platforms in 2016 that called for reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act, that would remove taxpayer-backstopped insured depository banks from the gambling casinos on Wall Street, Congress hasn’t even gotten close to passing that legislation.

The Herculean efforts and voices of the Parkland students, their devoted parents and teachers will be an exercise in futility unless they simultaneously address the malignant disease that has devoured our democracy. The shootings, like the collapse of our financial system in 2008 and the ongoing devastation to our environment, are just symptoms. The malignant disease is how political campaigns are financed in America.

Is that Cartel of Wall Street Lawyers Fixing Bank CEO Pay?

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: February 21, 2018

Logos of Wall Street BanksNothing buttresses Senator Bernie Sanders’ position that fraud on Wall Street is not a bug but a feature better than the news last week that the Citigroup Board was bumping up CEO Michael Corbat’s pay by 48 percent to $23 million for 2017. Corbat has sat at the helm of the bank since October 2012 as the bank has paid more than $12 billion in fines and restitution for serial abuses of the public and investors, including its first criminal felony count in more than a century of existence. The felony count came on May 20, 2015 from the U.S. Department of Justice over the bank’s involvement in a bank cartel that was rigging foreign currency markets. Numerous other charges against the bank have focused on money-laundering. Citigroup’s long history of involvement in money-laundering also gives the appearance of being a feature not a bug. (See a timeline of the charges against Citigroup under Corbat’s tenure at the end of this article.)

Aside from the feeling that overseeing a business model of fraud on Wall Street is a road to riches for Wall Street’s mega bank CEOs, there is the disquieting question as to whether this strangely uniform obscene pay of the top dogs on Wall Street is being orchestrated by another invisible cartel.

On October 14, 2016 Bloomberg News’ reporters Greg Farrell and Keri Geiger landed the bombshell report that the top lawyers of the biggest Wall Street banks had been meeting secretly for two decades with their counterparts at international banks. At the 2016 secret meeting, held in May at a posh hotel in Versailles, the following were among the big bank lawyers: Gregory Palm, part of the Management Committee at Goldman Sachs; Stephen Cutler of JPMorgan (a former Director of Enforcement at the SEC); Gary Lynch of Bank of America (also a former Director of Enforcement at the SEC); Morgan Stanley’s Eric Grossman; Citigroup’s Rohan Weerasinghe; Markus Diethelm of UBS Group AG; Richard Walker of Deutsche Bank (again, a former Director of Enforcement at the SEC); Robert Hoyt of Barclays; Romeo Cerutti of Credit Suisse Group AG; David Fein of Standard Chartered; Stuart Levey of HSBC Holdings; and Georges Dirani of BNP Paribas SA.

Reuters reported last Friday how Corbat’s $23 million pay compared to his peers on Wall Street. It noted that Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase is now making $29.5 million. (Dimon has presided over three criminal felony counts at the bank within the past four years while keeping his job and watching his pay skyrocket.) Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman is making $27 million. Lloyd Blankfein, whose bank is tiny compared to JPMorgan Chase, is making $22 million. And Bank of America’s CEO Brian Moynihan is being paid the same as Corbat, $23 million after recently getting a 15 percent pay boost.

Every one of the top lawyers of these banks were at that secret confab in 2016.

The most recent proxy filed by JPMorgan Chase goes to inordinate lengths to justify what it is paying its CEO Jamie Dimon. It includes a graph comparing his pay to peer bank CEOs and another graph that shows what percent of profits he and the CEOs of peer banks are receiving. (How that became a relevant metric is anyone’s guess. These are not, after all, family-owned businesses but banks that are subsidized by a taxpayer backstop for their trillions in insured deposits which typically earn less than one percent interest as the banks simultaneously charge 10 to 20 percent interest on their credit cards issued to the struggling middle class of America.)

A better metric would be how much shareholders have lost from fines and settlements under the reigning CEO. In Jamie Dimon’s case, it’s north of $36 billion since the financial crisis in 2008. Additionally, there’s those three criminal felony counts, the first in the bank’s more than century-old existence. Two felony counts were leveled by the U.S. Justice Department in 2014 for the bank’s role in Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. Another felony count came the very next year for the bank’s role in the foreign exchange rigging.

The era of obscene pay on Wall Street has occurred side-by-side with the era of serial charges of crimes. There is only one way to interpret this: the Boards of Directors of these banks have lost their moral compass.


A sampling of charges against Citigroup since Michael Corbat became CEO:

July 1, 2013: Citigroup agrees to pay Fannie Mae $968 million for selling it defective mortgage loans.

September 25, 2013: Citigroup agrees to pay Freddie Mac $395 million to settle claims it sold it toxic mortgages.

December 4, 2013: Citigroup admits to participating in the Yen Libor financial derivatives cartel to the European Commission and accepts a fine of $95 million.

July 14, 2014: The U.S. Department of Justice announces a $7 billion settlement with Citigroup for selling toxic mortgages to investors. Attorney General Eric Holder called the bank’s conduct “egregious,” adding, “As a result of their assurances that toxic financial products were sound, Citigroup was able to expand its market share and increase profits.”

November 2014: Citigroup pays more than $1 billion to settle civil allegations with regulators that it manipulated foreign currency markets. Other global banks settled at the same time.

May 20, 2015: Citicorp, a unit of Citigroup becomes an admitted felon by pleading guilty to a felony charge in the matter of rigging foreign currency trading, paying a fine of $925 million to the Justice Department and $342 million to the Federal Reserve for a total of $1.267 billion. The prior November it paid U.S. and U.K. regulators an additional $1.02 billion.

May 25, 2016: Citigroup agrees to pay $425 million to resolve claims brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that it had rigged interest-rate benchmarks, including ISDAfix, from 2007 to 2012.

July 12, 2016: The Securities and Exchange Commission fined Citigroup Global Markets Inc. $7 million for failure to provide accurate trading records over a period of 15 years. According to the SEC: “CGMI failed to produce records for 26,810 securities transactions comprising over 291 million shares of stock and options in response to 2,382 EBS requests made by Commission staff, between May 1999 and April 2014, due to an error in the computer code for CGMI’s EBS response software. Despite discovering the error in late April 2014, CGMI did not report the issue to Commission staff or take steps to produce the omitted data until nine months later on January 27, 2015. CGMI’s failure to discover the coding error and to produce the missing data for many years potentially impacted numerous Commission investigations.”

January 23, 2017: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) fined Citigroup $28.8 million for “giving the runaround to borrowers trying to save their homes.”

May 22, 2017: Citigroup signed a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice and paid a $97 million fine over charges that its Banamex unit committed “criminal violations by willfully failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering” program.

November 21, 2017: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) imposed a $2.75 million fine against Citibank for a litany of abuses against student loan borrowers. The CFPB also ordered Citi to pay $3.75 million in restitution.

December 28, 2017: Citigroup paid $11.5 million to settle FINRA charges its brokerage unit harmed retail customers by displaying the wrong research ratings from its analysts for hundreds of stocks for nearly five years. For example, customers might have been seeing a “buy” rating when the actual rating from the analyst was “sell.”

January 4, 2018: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency fines Citigroup $70 million for failures in its anti-money laundering policies.