Citigroup cuts nearly 30,000 jobs in second quarter

[OhioChick]

Source: Economic Times India

17 Jul 2009, 2103 hrs IST, PTI

NEW YORK: Citigroup has slashed nearly 30,000 jobs in the second quarter of this year as the banking major resorted to cost cutting measures to tackle the financial turmoil.

The banking behemoth has swung into a profit of $4.28 billion in the second quarter on the back of a gain of $6.7 billion from the stake sale of Smith Barney brokerage.

According to the company, in the second quarter, the number of employees stood at around 2,79,000.

"Head count declined by approximately 30,000 from the first quarter of 2009, to 2,79,000, mainly driven by Smith Barney transaction," Citigroup said while announcing the second quarter results today.

"Head count is now approximately 96,000 below peak levels. June was the 20th consecutive month of head count decline," the statement said.

In the second quarter of last year, the company had a loss of $2.49 billion, it said in a statement.



Read more: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Citigroup-cuts-nearly-30000-jobs-in-second-quarter/articleshow/4790404.cms

[pinniped]

1. I don't have CIti crap, but they probably jacked interest rates on CC holders....

for added measure.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. They started adding mysterious "fees" to my checking account

which I kept only in the belief that it was easier to persuade foreign customers to make wire transfers into Citibank than into my local credit union.

Finally I decided that the mysterious fees were more trouble than they worth (especially when they put my account into overdraft, which, of course, triggered another fee), so I closed my account.

[PJPhreak]

2. no wonder they are in trouble...

they can't even count....what the hell kind of number is "2,79,000"

[smitra]

4. Writing the number this way is not Citi's fault...not that I am their fan..

It is to do with the fact that this is an Indian news site, and in India 100,000 is called a lakh - the next higher quantity above a thousand - and is written as 1,00,000. So while two million seven hundred thousand would be written as 2,700,000 here, it would be written as 27,00,000 in India, and called 'twenty seven lakh'.

[sutz12]

5. I'm starting to feel a bit ethno-genic here...

Now we have to learn to count like the Indians?

:scared:

:D

[smitra]

9. No, you don't.

Note the source quoted by the OP - it is the Economic Times of India. The website is meant to be (mostly) read in India, by Indians, familiar with their own system of counting. If some poster on DU chooses to post from it here, that hardly requires the Indian newspaper to write their numbers in the US way.

[Romulox]

6. Isn't that logical, given a base ten system?

"n India 100,000 is called a lakh - the next higher quantity above a thousand - and is written as 1,00,000."

The next higher quantity above a thousand is ten thousand (10,000). Is this quantity written "1,0000"? I should think not!

[Javaman]

7. Screw it. I call for a base 60 system and have it done with!!

The Babylonians were right!

[smitra]

8. It IS logical.

The operative concept here is that you use a different WORD - like thousand, or million. If you say ten thousand, that is still using the basic idea of a thousand and qualifying it with a ten. Hence, you write 10,000 and not 1,0000. Consequently, when you decide to use a different word to designate one hundred thousand, you do not write it as 100,000 but 1,00,000 (or one lakh).

There is no concept of a million in India. It is called ten lakhs and written as 10,00,000. But since this amount is called a million in the US, it is written as 1,000,000.

Two different cultures, and both have been logical.

[OhioChick]

11. Thanks for explaining.....

I should've put a brief explanation in the comment section following the article, above.

[DebbieCDC]

10. How many millions in bonuses did they give out to top management at the same time?