Regulatory Relief for Banking Organizations

Today, Federal Reserve Governor Donald Kohn testified before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in the Senate on regulatory relief proposals for banking organizations the Fed would like to see implemented. Here are four of the thirty six proposals: 

Appendix: Regulatory Relief, Proposals Supported by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Testimony of Donald Kohn: The Board believes the first 20 items listed below would provide meaningful regulatory relief to banking organizations within the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve. The remaining 16 items would improve the supervision of banking organizations, facilitate the resolution of failed banks, streamline procedural or other requirements under the federal banking laws, or eliminate outdated provisions of law.

1. Authorize the Federal Reserve to pay interest on balances held at Reserve Banks ...gives the Federal Reserve explicit authority to pay interest on balances held by depository institutions at the Federal Reserve Banks....
   
2. Authorize depository institutions to pay interest on demand deposits ...repeals the provisions in current law that prohibit depository institutions from paying interest on demand deposits. If adopted, the amendment would allow all depository institutions that have the authority to offer demand deposits to pay interest on those deposits.
   
3. Ease restrictions on interstate branching and mergers in a competitively equitable manner ...authorizes national and state banks to open de novo branches on an interstate basis. Currently, banks may establish de novo branches in a new state only if the state has affirmatively authorized de novo branching. This existing limitation places banks at a disadvantage to federal savings associations ...
   
4. Allow insured banks to engage in interstate merger transactions with savings associations and trust companies ...would allow an insured bank to directly acquire, by merger, an insured savings association or uninsured trust company in a different home state without first converting ... into an insured bank. As under current law, the insured bank would have to be the survivor of the merger.

For me, an interesting feature of this is the following:

Having the authority to pay interest on excess reserves also could help mitigate potential volatility in overnight interest rates. If the Federal Reserve was authorized to pay interest on excess reserves, and did so, the rate paid would act as a minimum for overnight interest rates, because banks generally would not lend to other banks at a lower rate than they could earn by keeping their excess funds at a Reserve Bank. Although the Board sees no need to pay interest on excess reserves in the near future, the ability to do so would be a potentially useful addition to the monetary policy toolkit of the Federal Reserve.

The discussion, discussed previously here, brings up the possibility of a "channel" or "corridor" system for setting the federal funds rate as is currently in place in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This system makes open market operations unnecessary and allows the Fed, as proposed elsewhere on the proposed list or regulatory changes, to remove reserve requirements.

Currently, the federal funds rate is capped by the discount rate. Since the Fed will lend to banks at the discount rate, no bank would pay a higher rate in the federal funds market so the federal funds rate cannot go any higher than the discount rate. Similarly, with the ability to pay interest on deposits, no bank would lend to another bank at less than the rate the Fed will pay on deposits, so the federal funds rate cannot be lower than this. These two bounds are shown in the figure below (copied from Mishkin's text). Notice that if these bounds are fairly tight, the federal funds rate will be controlled precisely (for more on this point, see Woodford).  In addition, keeping the federal funds rate on target does not require open market operations, only discount window (lombard facility) borrowing and lending.

Larger version

Comments

[Winslow R.]

"This places the Fed in a different situation than any other issuer of dollar-denominated liabilities.70 Citibank can determine the number of dollars that one of its jumbo CDs will be worth at maturity, but must then allow the market to determine the current
dollar value of such a claim; it cannot determine both the quantity that it wishes to issue of such claims and the interest yield on them. Yet, the Fed can, and does so daily—though as we have noted, at present, it chooses to fix the interest yield on Fed balances at zero and only to vary the supply"

I disagree with Woodward. Citigroup could just as easily set the market price by offering to redeem their Jumbo CD at a set amount that increases by a set amount each day. The thing that makes Citigroup different from the Fed is the requirement that Citigroup has a requried capital ratio of certain composition. The Fed has no such requirement. If the CD holder wants to exchange his 'Citigroup dollars' into 'Fed dollars' Citigroup better have the capital. If the Fed wants to convert 'Fed dollars' into 'Citigroup dollars' and Citigroup balks, all the Fed has to do is increase capital requirements and change composition to include Fed dollars.

[Winslow R.]

"Could we privatize money?

Nonetheless, it is worth remarking that there is no reason of principle
for prohibiting private entry into this activity—apart from the
usual concerns with the prevention of fraud and financial panics that
require regulation of the activities of financial intermediaries in general"

Private monies lack political control - something only the government should have. How would you like to take a loan in say 'B of A' dollars and then have the supply of 'B of A' dollars limited or reduced so that it would be impossible for you to pay back the loan?

[Winslow R.]

These proposals have been around for awhile, and tend to make people's eyes glaze over.

This is the inner workings of our monetary structure so it is encouraging to see you have addressed these issues in the past. Something few economists seem to spend the effort or why would we have the current system?

The following are my observations how these changes fit into my current framework. If someone has a different take, I'd like to hear it.

1. There would be an increase in the ability of 'monetary aggregates' to provide useful information to monetary authorities. As reserve growth will more closely follow bank loan growth as securitization is reduced. This could reduce reliance on the 'output gap' theory.

2. The 'ability' to pay interest on demand deposits is not a requirement. Why not?

3. Banks will no longer be able to borrow from other banks at 'submarket' rates, but they still would be able to borrow from their depositors at 'submarket' rates. Why should one bank with 'lazy depositors' gain an advantage over another? Shouldn't all supervised/insured banks compete for funds on the same level playing field?

4. Without a requirement that banks pay interest on demand deposits, those banks with large deposit bases would benefit from higher interest receipts. Possibly encouraging takeovers of deposit heavy banks furthering consolidation. Interbank lending rates between two banks can already be reduced to zero by consolidation of two banks.

5.There would likely be a reduction in securitization of bank loans as reserves no longer act as a 'bank tax'. This may be a good thing though it could tend to increase 'moral hazard' issues as more questionable loans were kept on banks books.

6.Increased system stability as a higher percentage of loan/deposits will have government guarantees.

7.Finanicial system stability will tend to force wealth distribution issues into the political arena where they should be addressed.

8. Reading Woodford's paper it would seem the real power of the Fed is the ability to define the capital ratio and its compostition along with strict supervision of those ratios rather than paying interest on reserve balances This will allow the Fed to retain control of bank lending especially if banks either consolidate into a single entity or started clearing amongst themselves.

9. Finally Woodford's paper raises questions in my mind about long-term yeilds and the marginal propensity to consume. My framework says as wealth consolidates long-term rates fall in an accelerating manner as aggregate demand is reduced by the wealthy's propensity to save. The only way to stop the fall in rates and aggregate demand is through money growth (private or government borrowing) that meets or exceeds the needs of the economy (roughly GDP growth) but only government money growth is sustainable as 'the borrowing private sector' incomes will stagnate due to the wealth consolidation. 'The lending private sector' incomes stagnate due to falling interest rates. Rates could fall to zero and then term lengths could extend to infinity for a economic system to function without government wealth stabilizition policies but is highly unlikely.

[Emmanuel]

With regard to reserve requirements, providing relief is plain ridiculous. I've cited this passage from Richard Daughty, "The Angriest Man in Economics" elsewhere:

If I looked it up correctly, in 1995 the banks' reserves were about $60 billion, insuring against $206 billion in loans and leases, and $87 billion in savings. M3 was $4.3 trillion.

Now, in 2006, notice the amazing difference! Today, required reserves are only a measly $41 billion (down almost 33%!) as a cushion against a whopping $5,540 billion in loans and leases (2,700 percent bigger than in 1995) and an astonishing $5,150 billion in savings (5,900 percent bigger)! M3 is now $10.3 trillion.

Why exactly do banks need "relief"? Arguing that less relief in the form of much, much higher reserve requirements to control loose money popping up in real estate and derivatives speculation seems to me what the doctor ordered. Giving more advantages to banks that are already extraordinarily privileged seems to me like a very unfair way to go about things.

[Winslow R.]

Emmanuel wrote:

"Arguing that less relief in the form of much, much higher reserve requirements to control loose money popping up in real estate and derivatives speculation seems to me what the doctor ordered."

Higher reserve ratio requirements would shift more lending to nonbank/nonregulated entities. From a system stability standpoint not a good thing. From a 'moral hazard' standpoint a good thing as private savers would cover risk rather than government insurance.

Currently, it seems it is the enforcement of 'capital requirements' rather than the 'reserve ratio' that keeps 'moral hazard' from infecting banks. The M's do seem to have lost much of their predictive ability as the reserve ratio has lost its correlation to loan growth.

[calmo]

I confess that these kind of posts do intimidate me. But this softens the blow:

Today, Federal Reserve Governor Donald Kohn testified before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in the Senate on regulatory relief proposals for banking organizations the Fed would like to see implemented.

because I know I'm 10 times smarter (atleast)than any Senator.

Let me check who's on that committee to further buttress my confidence:

From Chairman Shelby's bio:

Prior to Senator Shelby's election to the United States Senate, he served four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and eight years in the Alabama legislature. He also served as a City Prosecutor in Tuscaloosa, U.S. Magistrate for the Northern District of Alabama, and Special Assistant to the Attorney General in Alabama.

A fifth generation Alabamian, Senator Shelby is a graduate of the University of Alabama's undergraduate and law programs.

Ok, no banking experience there.

Bennet's bio:
Prior to his election to the Senate in 1992, Bennett earned distinction in entrepreneurial and government activities. For his success as chief executive officer of the Franklin International Institute Bennett was named Inc. Magazine's "Entrepreneur of the Year" for the Rocky Mountain region. [Who knew? Rocky Mountaineers, that's who.]
Born September 18, 1933, in Salt Lake City, Bennett is the son of former four-term U.S. Senator Wallace F. Bennett and Frances Grant Bennett.
Crucial family experience, but no banking experience there.

Ok, Allard could be a threat:
U.S. Senator Wayne Allard is a Colorado veterinarian committed to cutting taxes, eliminating the deficit, returning power to state and local governments and assuring the security of America both at home and abroad.
But this bit:
While completing veterinary school, Allard married Joan Malcolm who received her degree in microbiology, also from CSU. They built their veterinary practice in Loveland, the Allard Animal Hospital, from scratch.

Yes, the "scratch" is a sign that he could have immense banking savvy.

Enzi is mixed:
Enzi is the Senate's only accountant by profession and he serves with distinction on the Senate Banking Committee.
But against that, a real credential:
After marrying Diana (Buckley) in 1969, Enzi and his wife moved to Gillette, Wyoming where they started their own small business, NZ Shoes, with stores later in Sheridan, Wyoming and Miles City, Montana.
And finally,
Enzi is an elder in the Presbyterian Church and taught the high school Sunday school class for more than 10 years. Enzi's love for Wyoming grew as he became an Eagle Scout.
See it pays to be prepared people.

Hagel is different:

Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, Hagel worked in the private sector as the President of McCarthy & Co., an investment banking firm based in Omaha, Nebraska, and served as Chairman of the Board of American Information Systems (AIS).
And his biography reads like that of a presidential candidate.
[No bits about building a canoe with his son for this guy.]

Santorum, who unlike the others, may have actually penned this himself:

After graduating from Penn State with a degree in Political Science, he received his M.B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh. He moved to Harrisburg, working as Administrative Assistant to State Senator Doyle Corman and later received his J.D. from the Dickinson School of Law. After receiving his law degree, Rick returned to western Pennsylvania to put his education to use.
And he should use the same outfit that did Hagel's.

Bunning
This is so cute:
Bunning was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1998, winning by a mere 6,766 votes. In 2004 he won by a margin almost 3 ½ times larger than his victory in 1998,
Not all of us take the stats, even baseball ones, that seriously Jim.
That combination carried him on to a highly successful 17-year career as a Major League Baseball player after his graduation from Xavier University with an Economics degree.
Why don't I trust this jock?
Service on this committee allows Bunning a direct role as to how nearly two-thirds of all federal dollars are spent on such issues as tax policy, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, welfare reform, and trade policy.
I just don't.

Crapo's biography even provides highlights so we can skim it. That's thinking of your reader's best interests, no?

Professionally, Mike was a partner in the law firm of Holden, Kidwell, Hahn & Crapo prior to his service in Congress. He is a member of the Idaho and California Bar Associations.
Another lawyer, but this one tainted by an unfortunate name.

Sununu is the youngest and has the shortest (thanks!) biography which contains no banking experience despite those graduate degrees.

Dole, one of only 2 women and although her photo suggests she could be my daughter this:

A native of Salisbury, North Carolina, Elizabeth Dole graduated with distinction from Duke University in 1958...
suggests otherwise.
But banking experience...or any accomplishments/appointments since W came to power...nope. This is an Old Republican people (fuggedabout that photo) and maybe worth paying attention to.

Marinez, the Cuban who made good (and with W, making better):
After graduating from Florida State University with his undergraduate and law degrees Mel Martinez went back to his adopted hometown of Orlando and became the first bilingual attorney in Central Florida.
and despite his lack of senatorial experience, makes it into this prestigious camp on bare obsequiousness alone.

Ok, and then there are the half dozen or so Dems that no one listens to anyhow.

Ok, we have nothing to fear about looking stupid in front of Kohn or this senate committee people. Pretend you are Bunning.

[Winslow R.]

Emmanual,

Before you quote the guy again, check his numbers. His general direction is correct but quite a bit overstated.

Bank loans and leases 1947 -2006
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/data/m/b1020a.txt

Calmo wrote:
"Ok, we have nothing to fear about looking stupid in front of Kohn or this senate committee people. Pretend you are Bunning."

*I got started by asking the question, 'who gets to keep the profits from money creation?', of a UCSD economics professor.

[calmo]

I should add that Sarbanes (born in the same little town of Salisbury and within a year or two of Dole) is the ranking Dem on that committee and may be the brains of the outfit, not the lone Economist (Bunning) as some of us might have hoped.
So Kohn might as well talk to him and the rest of that committee can huddle around Sarbanes to figure out what Kohn said.
It's important to have sight on that oversight committee and not merely lawyers who are there to protect vested interests, --who may not be able to distinguish protection from exposure when it comes to risk.

[Emmanuel]

Winslow--the Mogambo Guru is indeed a bit off on his bank loans and leases figure, but not by a whole lot. He also appears to be a bit off with regard to bank deposits and aggregate reserves of depositary institutions as well, though this time he understates the latter amount. M3 (which is soon to be discontinued for obvious political reasons if you ask me) looks OK.

I'll try to get in touch with the Mogambo Guru. He might not be a stickler for detail sometimes, but his logic is sound and he's very entertaining.

[Winslow R.]

Guess I was wrong when I posted March 2 point 9 this was unlikely....

"This new breed of hybrids, called "perpetual trust preferred securities,'' enables financial institutions to raise cash without impairing their credit ratings. That's because such offerings are treated by the rating agencies as equity -- even though they look a lot like bonds. In addition, the Federal Reserve recently determined that these new hybrid offerings can be used by banks to bulk up their Tier 1 regulatory capital.

Tier 1 capital, sometimes referred to as core capital in the banking world, is a figure regulators keep a close eye because it's a measure of lender's ability to handle unforeseen losses....

The removal of the maturity date solved that problem, but raised another one. Many investors who buy into hybrid offerings don't want to be left holding their bonds forever. They want eventually to be taken out of the deal, especially since hybrid owners rank low on the list of who gets paid back if a company becomes insolvent.

http://www.thestreet.com/_pbear/stocks/brokerages/10271704.html

[damari]

WHAT ABOUT CITIBANK ETHICS AND THE LIES THEY TELL

ALL I WAS TRYING TO DO WAS PUT MY DAUGHTER FIRST
HOW DID CITIGROUP MAKE THE LIST OF THE 100 BEST COMPANIES FOR WORKING MOTHERS TO WORK AT??????
MOTHER FIRED VIA UPS 13 DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS AND STILL CITIBANK LIES TO CLIENTS ABOUT WHAT THEY DID
IF YOU RECEIVE THIS A SECOND TIME I AM SORRY
ALSO FEEL FREE TO POST AND FORWARD OUR STORY TO ANYONE YOU THINK COULD HELP US, THANKS

ON SATURDAY I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM CITIGROUP THANKING ME FOR MY FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE YET THEY JUST EXPLAINED TO THE DFEH WHY THEY FIRED ME
PLEASE HELP US GET TO THE TRUTH
GETTTING THIS LETTER WAS VERY DISTURBING SINCE I FEEL I WAS WRONGFULLY TERMINATED
I HAD NO PLANS TO LEAVE CITIBANK IN CARMEL
THE LETTER EVEN STATES TO ANOTHER 5 YEARS BUT THEY FIRED ME!!!!!
A FEW DAYS LATER I RECEIVE ANOTHER LETTER CONFIRMING THAT I WAS FIRED!
HOW MESSED UP IS CITIGROUP??

Subject: IS IT LEGAL TO LIE TO THE DFEH & US DEPT OF LABOR? CITIGROUP DID & THEY LIE TO CLIENTS IN CARMEL PLEASE READ THIS LETTER SENT TO THE MONTEREY HERALD
The Monterey County Herald
Attn: Herald Executive Editor, Carolina Garcia
Monterey, CA 93940
cgarcia@montereyherald.com
(831) 646-4306
Ms. Garcia,
I have attempted through several sources to clarify my
position regarding my unfair treatment by my previous
employer, Citibank. I had no previous plans to leave
my position as Head Teller at the Citibank branch in
Carmel. After 4 years of employment with the company,
the unfair and unequal treatment of employees led to
medically supervised work-related stress. The manager
of the branch then accused me of job abandonment which
led to my termination via UPS delivery on December 15,
2005, while I was at home on medical leave.

Subsequent to my termination, I received numerous
correspondences that referenced me as terminated, no
longer with the company, and as a former employee. My
401K and pension have both been forwarded to me.
However, when interviewed by the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing, Citibank representatives
reported that I was terminated due to not personally
reporting my absence, but rather having medical
documentation reported by my physician. When
interviewed by the U. S. Department Wage and Hours
Division, Citibank representatives reported on August
8, 2006, that I was still an employee of the company
and that a letter indicating such would be forwarded
to me. To date, this letter has not been received.

I have continued to be in contact with several clients
that have stated that Citibank representatives
indicated that I was either on vacation, or that I
voluntarily resigned in order to work with my husband
in his new business. This is absolutely untrue. It was
my intention to continue my employment as the benefits
were extremely important to me, as well as to my
family.

Clearly, there has been a gross misrepresentation by
Citibank, either to its clients or to the U. S.
Department Wage and Hours Division. It is my position
that I was unfairly terminated by Citibank. The
unscrupulous behavior of Citibank and its
representatives, locally and at the corporate level,
is unacceptable.

It is also my opinion that if a corporation as large
as Citibank is representing itself on a local level,
the local management and staff should act accordingly.
A large part of the attraction of the Monterey area is
the sense of community that is felt here on a day to
day basis. If Citibank is allowed to misrepresent its
actions to clients and government agencies, where will
the corporate takeover end?
SINCERELY

Damari Stratford
dcsbears@aol.com
1291 ORD GROVE AVE, SEASIDE CA 93955
831-583-9077
Subject: Re: Your message to the governor was received
THE GOVERNOR HAS WRITTEN ME TWICE AND SAID HE WOULD
HELP,, CITIBANK HAS LIED TO THE DFEH AND US LABOR DEPT
WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION AND TO THEIR CLIENTS ABOUT MY
STATUS, I NEED HELP, HOW CAN I FIGHT WHEN THIS
CORPORATION IS TELLING LIES AND HAS ALL THE LAWYERS
THEY NEED AND I CAN'T AFFORD ONE. HOW MANY TIMES ARE
THEY GOING TO GET AWAY WITH MISTREATING EMPLOYEES
ON 8/8/06 RONAN FROM THE US DEPT OF LABOR WAS TOLD BY
A CITIBANK ATTORNEY THAT THEY WOULD SEND ME A LETTER
EXPLAINING MY STATUS AS STILL AN EMPLOYEE, I HAVE YET
TO GET THIS LETTER, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO PUT A
LETTER TOGETHER IF THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH?
YOUR OFFICE AS WELL AS THE FIRST LADY'S OFFICE HAS
CALLED ME BUT WE AREN'T GETTING ANYWHERE. IT HAS BEEN
7 MONTHS SINCE I FIRST WROTE THE GOVERNOR. CITIBANK
ATTORNEYS HAVE CANCELLED 2 DEPOSITIONS AT THE LAST
MINUTE THE LAST INE THEY CANCELLED WAS AFTER TALKING
TO THE US LABOR DEPARTMENT,WHY?
MY JOB WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO MY FAMILY AND I PLEASE
HELP ME AND MY FAMILY AND ALL THOSE BEFORE ME THAT
HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY TERMINATED BY CITIBANK FOR NO
GOOD REASON
WHY IS EVERYONE SO AFRAID OF CITIGROUP? WHY CAN'T I
FIND AN ATTORNEY WILLING TO STAND UP TO THEM ON A
CONTINGENCY BASIS? I VOTED FOR THE GOVERNOR AND I NEED
HIM NOW
PLEASE CALL ANN FROM THE DFEH AT 408-277-1916 THEY
TOLD HER THAT I HAD CALLED IN ILL ON 11/15/05 AND THAT
I TOLD THEM I WOULDN'T BE IN, THIS IS A LIE I WORKED
THAT DAY AND I CAN PROVE THIS WITH MY IME CARD, THEN
THEY SAY THEY MADE AN ERROR
PLEASE CALL RONAN AT 415-744-5590 EXT 226 FROM THE US
LABOR DEPT TO VERIFY WHAT CITIBANK ATTORNEYS SAID. THE
ONLY REASON THEY OFFERED ME FMLA IS BECAUSE I FILED
FOR DISABILITY, BEFORE THAT THEY HAD PAID OUT MY FINAL
PAYCHECK, FIRED ME VIA UPS, SENT ME COBRA INFORMATION.
PLEASE HELP US PLEASE SEE THAT THE GOVERNOR GETS THIS
EMAIL AND ASK HIM TO MAKE A CALL ON MY BEHALF
CORPORATE AMERICA NEEDS TO TAKE BETTER CARE OF THEIR
GOOD EMPLOYEES AND NOT ALLOW A MANAGER WITH BAD SKILLS
TO FIRE SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE HE WANTS TO
SINCERELY DAMARI STARTFROD
MOTHER WIFE HUMAN BEING AND I VOTED FOR THE GOVERNOR
I MATTER TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CITIBANK IN CARMEL LIES TO CLIENTS ABOUT WHY I AM NOT
THERE. THEY TELL PEOPLE THAT I AM ON VACATION OR THAT
I LEFT TO WORK FOR MY HUSBAND INSTEAD OF TELLING THEM
HAT THEY FIRED ME AFTER MY DOCTOR FAXED IN A NOTE AND
CALLED IN FOR ME TO PROTECT ME FROM HAVING MY BLOOD
PRESSURE RISE. JEFF URSINO AND KATHLEEN MUNOZ LIES TO
ANN AT THE DFEH AND THEIR LAWYERS LIED TO THE US DEPT
OF LABOR. KATHLEN WAS DOING THE OVERDRAFT ON HER
DAUGHTERS ACCOUNTS AND REFUNDED HER OWN DAUHGTER MONEY
WHILE THE MANAGER WAS ON VACATION. SHE LIES ABOUT
BEING FIRED FROM WELLS FARGO, SHE LIED TO THE WORKERS
COMP PEOPLE AND WILL LIE TO ANYONE. KATHLEEN HAD
INSTUCTED THE OTHER TELLERS TO COOK THE BOOKS BY
HAVING THEM PUT IN FALSE REFEERALS AND JEFF URSINO DID
NOTHING ABOUT IT BUT I GOT WRITTEN UP FOR MISSING WORK
WITH A DOCTORS NOTE. THEY STATE TO ONE AGENCY THAT I
WAS FIRED AND TO THE OTHER THAT I AM STILL EMPLOYED,
THEY STATE I WAS FIRED FOR NOT CALLING IN YET I WAS
RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO HAVE MY DOCTOEOR CALL IN AND FAX
MY NOTE IN DUE TO THE STRESS AND HARRASSMENT BROUGHT
ON BY JEFF AND CITIBANK, WHERE ARE THE ETHICS IN THIS
COMPANY


NOW THEY ARE TELLING MORE LIES TO THE DEPT OF FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING JEFF TELLS THEM WHY I WAS FIRED
AND THEIR LAWYERS TELL THE US DEPT OF LABOR THAT I AM
STILL EMPLOYEED
PLEASE HELP US GET THIS STORY OUT TO THE WORLD IF IT
ISN'T TOO MUCH TO ASK:) HOW DO YOU FIGHT LIARS, HOW DO
THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT
CITIBANK IN CARMEL 831-624-8258 CALL AND ASK THEM
WHERE I AM ASK FOR KATHLEEN AND ASK HER WHY SHE LIES
THIS WOMAN WAS HAVING CITIBANK PAY FOR HER DAUGHTER
OVERDRAFTS AND HER A TELLER REFUND HER OWN DAUGHTER
MONEY WHILE THE MANAGER WAS OUT ON VACATION SO WHY
SHOULD ANYONE BELEIVE THIS UNETHICAL PERSON JUST AS
JEFF URSINO THE MANAGER OF THE CAPITOLA BRANCH LIES TO
HIS BOSSES TO MAKE HIMSELF LOOK BETTER PLEASE HELP US
WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME
HOW DO YOU FIGHT A CORPORATION LIKE THIS
Extra! Extra! Read all about it!
DAMARI AND CITIBANK HERE IS THE TRUTH!!
To set the record straight!
Damari was fired by Citibank in Carmel!
Damari did not leave the bank to go work for her
husband!!!!
DAMARI HAD NO PLANS TO LEAVE CITIBANK!
DAMARI PLANNED ON STAYING FOR ANOTHER 16YRS.
THE BENEFITS WERE VERY IMPORTANT TO HER FAMILY!!
DAMARI WAS FIRED VIA UPS WHILE AT HOME ILL DUE TO WORK
RELATED STRESS BROUGHT ON BY THE MANAGER AND THE
UNFAIR AND UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES
ALONG WITH BEING THREATEN AND HARASSED
BY THE MANAGER FOR JOB ABANDOMENT.
SEVERAL OF
Citibank clients have TOLD HER that they have been
told by the staff at the Carmel branch :
THAT SHE LEFT TO GO WORK FOR HER HUSBAND!
THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE!!!!
What else will they lie about?
Are they ashamed of what was done??
WHY DO THEY FEEL THEY NEED TO SAY SHE LEFT TO GO WORK
WITH HER HUSBAND
( I DO NOT WORK FOR MY HUSBAND)
( I DO NOT WORK FOR JND PLUMBING)
(NOR AM I ON VACATION)
INSTEAD OF JUST TELLING THE TRUTH ?
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE CARMEL BRANCH THAT COULD SWEAR
TO THIS? NO!

ENOUGH WITH THE LIES CITIBANK!!!
IF YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS PLEASE SEND HER AN EMAIL
CITIBANK TOLD
THE US LABOR DEPT WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION ,
ON 08/08/06
THAT I AM STILL AN EMPLOYEE
YET I HAVE LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS
THAT CLEARLY USE THE WORDS
TERMINATED
NO LONGER WITH THE COMPANY
FORMER EMPLOYEE
AND MY 401K AND PENSION HAVE BEEN SENT TO ME AS OF
8/24/06 I HAVE YET TO GET THE LETTER FROM CITIBANK
WHICH EXPLAINS HOW I AM STILL AN EMPLOYEE! HOW LONG
DOES IT TAKE TO WRITE A LETTER IF YOU ARE TELLING THE
TRUTH HOW CAN THEY SAY TO THE US DEPT OF LABOR THAT I
AM STILL AN EMPLOYEE YET THEY TELL THE DFEH THAT THEY
FIRED ME FOR NOT CALLING IN, WHAT IS THE TRUTH
CITIBANK??????????
CITIBANK STATES THAT I WAS FIRED FOR NOT CALLING IN
YET MY DOCTOR CALLED IN FOR ME THE DAY BEFORE AND ALSO
FAXED IN A NOTE FOR ME WHICH THE MANAGER RETURNED TO
ME WITH MY LETTER OF TERMINATION. THEY KNEW THE DAY
BEFORE THAT I WASN'T COMING IN SO WHY WOULD HE CALL TO
ASK IF I WAS COMING IN IF IT WAS CLEARLY STATED ON THE
NOTE AND TOLD TO THEM BY MY DOCTOR TO PROTECT MY
HEALTH
JUST MORE LIES BY THE CITIBANK STAFF IN CARMEL

SENT TO--DCSbears...

I whole heartedly understand you delemma, and my heart goes
out to you.
a few years back, I worked for citibank/corp. for one full year.
It was without doubt the worst job, and the worst nightmare I have
ever lived. The treatment of employees was abominable, among many
other things. .
I worked with people that had been there for years. They were not treated
any better, than I was.
I quit in the middle of the day. I sat in my car for a good twenty minutes
breathing in what was for me, the most fresh air I had in one year.
In the following year, at least six people I had worked with, and had been there
for years, were let go, with the very worst excuses ever. Of course the lost all
benifits, and retirments.
Needless to say, I have never again banked with them, or used one of their credit
cards, or have done any other business with them, whatsoever, and when asked I inform orher companies why.
I have always...and to this day, informed everyone within earshot, of that disgusting thing, know as "citibank/corp.
I am sorry they got you. I hope you get them.

FROM AOL BLOG THANK YOU FOR YOU THOUGHTS
CITIBANK FIRES ME FOR NOT "FOLLOWING POLICY "
YET THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THEIR OWN POLICY CITIBANK IS UN FAIR AND UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES
WHAT KIND OF MAN FIRES YOU WHILE YOU ARE ILL KNOWING THAT YOU HAVE WORK RELATED STRESS AND YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE IS UP?
HOW HEARTLESS IS THIS CITIBANK MANAGER WHO COULDN'T WAIT FOR ME TO GET WELL?
CITIBANK MADE THE LIST OF THE 100 BEST COMPANIES FOR WORKING MOTHERS BUT AS I WAS ATTEMPTING TO PUT MY DAUGHTER FIRST THEY FIRED ME!!!
I WASN'T GIVEN AN EXIT INTERVIEW NOR WERE MY KEYS ASK FOR BUT THAT IS THEIR POLICY! HE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE MY FINAL PAYCHECK WITH MY LETTER OF TERMINATION AND THEY DEPOSITED IT INTO MY ACCOUNT WHICH IS NOT CALIF CODE
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM SOMEONE ON LINE
My heart goes out for you, just know that things happen for a resound and what go around must come around!! I myself am having my own issue with Citibank!!! I was approved for a lone and used my car as collateral which later I contacted them to hand me over the Title for renewal and it?s been now 3 ½ months I have been waiting for it and now have to deal with my vehicle parked without insurance and Citibank?s excuse is that Motor Vehicle can not locate my title and the most frustrating thing is that all the time I call I must have gave my # over 20 times and never get a call back regarding the status of my situation I would have to repeat myself all over again to a new rep??.How frustrating!!! Well that is the story of life??????Drama??????.Good Luck.
To OCC office

THank you for your reply and for requesting information form Citibank. Citibank states that I was fired for not following policy but yet they didn't follow their own policy and guide lines nor were they equal and fair in how they treated each employee.

Citibank states that I was fired for not calling in, but I did have my doctor call in at the end of my doctors appointment on 12/12/05 and my doctor also faxed on a note. Contact was made with the bank. My doctor called in to protect my health.
I have copies of some of Citibank policy which are in the employee hand book and from what I have read Citibank and the manager didn't follow proper procedure. Before firing they are to consider your work performance and take that into consideration and my reviews were very good. I never got a verbal warning just written up and the write up was not correct with errors. Citibank gives an exit interview which I didn't get nor was I asked to send in my keys.
Citibank sent me my Cobra papers and never offered me FMLA, when they find put that I was applying for disability or that I was disabled they reinstated my benefits and made them retro to 01/01/06 WHY BECAUSE THEY MESSED UP
Citibank then sends me a check for about six weeks worth of pay with no deductions for benefits then all of a sudden they start deducting for medical and dental and now I have to pay for these benefits out of my pocket
Many if Citibank clients have told me they have been told that I left to work for my husband or that I am on vacation.
Lisa Austin of Citigroup mentioned that when I go back to work they would set up payments for some of these benefits but she couldn't explain how this would happened after I explained that I had been fired. Is Citibank going to fire me again via UPS when my doctor feels that I am well enough to look for work?
Citibank didn't; follow policy to the tee and fires me for not following policy to the tee but had no heart about me being ill and my doctor helping me out.
Citibank made the list of the best 100 companies for working mother to work at but as I try to put my daughter first they started harassing me with abandonment and corrective action.
My seniority didn't matter to them.
Ronon at the US Dept of labor, wage and hour division ( 1-415-744-5590 ext 226 ) was told by Citigroup attorney that I was still employed and they would send a letter to explain but the letter never came.
Citibank fired me while in the middle of a workers comp pending case.
Ann at the DFEH ( 1-408-277-1916 ) was lied to by Jeff Ursino and Kathleen Munoz, they explain to the DFEH how and why they fired me.
Again Citibank violated state labor codes and more.
Employees which are unethical are still working there and I get fired for having my doctor call in, these employees broke company policy and still have jobs.
Citibank recently sent me a letter thanking me for my five years of service and it states looking forward to another five years but I was fired on 12/13/05 a few days later a get another letter stating that yes I had been terminated and the stocks that were issued to me for being a good employee had been taken back due to an error in their system. I believe the only error is that I was wrongfully terminated and Citibank is back tracking trying to cover up their mistakes.
My pension and 401k have been sent to me due to termination and then I get the letter saying looking forward to another five years.
Jeff Ursino knew that the tellers were cooking the books and none of them were written up or fired. Kathleen was refunding her daughter money and having Citibank pay for her overdrafts and she still has a job and Jeff knew about this. Unfair unequal treatment of employees.
Why did it take Citibank a few weeks to give me a clear reason as to why I was fired? Why was my final check deposited into my account, why was I fired via UPS, Why was my final check not ordered until 12/14/05? Why did Chrys Smith call workers comp on 12/14/05 to see if my case was going to be denied but yet didn't bother telling them that they had already fired me? This is violation of code 132A.
Why doesn't the staff at Citibank in Carmel simply say "she is no longer with us" instead of all the lies?
Why was Citibank so strict with me and the policy and yet not the other employees?
Why was it ok for Andrea to change her schedule but not me and I had the seniority over her?
Citibank told the Office of Thrift Supervision that they were dealing with it internally and the office asked them to send me a letter of explanation yet they never did.
How many other state codes have they ignored and violated?
Jeff Ursino states that he was calling to see if I was coming in yet he returns to me the faxed in note by my doctor with my letter of termination which clearly stated that I would be out for a few more days? Jeff knew I wasn't coming in he just fired me because I wanted to communicate via email to protect my blood pressure and stress level. Is it against the law to protect yourself? They wamt to hold me to the letter of theit policy but don't follow their policy or state codes to the letter of policy.

[Damari]

To whom it may concern, 10/03/2007

A CRY FOR HELP

Please help the little person fight corporate America and their lies and false statements

On, Feb. 16, 2006 someone representing Citigroup Inc at One Court Square, 14th Floor, Long Island City, NY 11120, submitted a rebuttal to Ann Luekeman, Consultant for the Department of Fair Employment and Housing at 111 N Market Street, Suite 810, San Jose Ca 95112, and the statement entered is false and full of lies . Ann Luekeman also conducted the interviews for the investigation and was also lied to by Jeff Ursino and Kathleen Munoz during their interviews. I feel that the case needs to be investigated due to the fact that the DFEH made their decision with false statements submitted by Citigroup attorney and their employees. Sheri Paulo, the Employee Relations director for Citigroup was aware of the false information submitted yet even though they/she said they would submit a new statement they did not and stood by the lies knowing they were lies. I was wrongfully termination, harassed, by Jeff Ursino, and I can’t understand how an attorney lies to the DFEH and then they aren’t held accountable. This is unethical behavior on all those whom lied and I have to pay for their lies. Citigroup violated several Ca labor codes in the process of firing me nor did Citibank follow their own firing procedures. I was not offered FMLA until months later.
I am begging that someone out there will help a mother who was simply trying to work be a mom and a wife making a honest living yet the manager and supervisor both lied as well as the Citigroup lawyers. Their lawyers requested more time to answer the DFEH yet submitted false information and this is unethical, please help us. I have been on disability since I was fired on 12/13/05 via UPS, I did not know I had lost my job until 12/15/05 because I was out on a workers comp pending case when I was fired. Violation 132A.My last pay check was direct deposited into my checking account, it was not included with my letter of termination. I would like to know who submitted these false statements for Citicorp and or Citibank and Citigroup. I don’t have a team of attorneys as they do or the funds to hire the right attorney to get to the truth. Please help us.

Sincerely,

Damari Stratford