CITI的股票# Investment - 投资
x*m
1 楼
想问大家，现在CITI的股票这么低，是否是买入的好时候。我想做长期持有，考虑现在
国有化，应该是不会倒闭的吧，到现在应该只能向上吧，还有可能继续跌吗？
国有化，应该是不会倒闭的吧，到现在应该只能向上吧，还有可能继续跌吗？
s*n
2 楼
你搞清楚什么叫国有化了吗? 如果完全国有化意味着所有股票清零你知道吗？
【在 x**m 的大作中提到】
: 想问大家，现在CITI的股票这么低，是否是买入的好时候。我想做长期持有，考虑现在
: 国有化，应该是不会倒闭的吧，到现在应该只能向上吧，还有可能继续跌吗？
【在 x**m 的大作中提到】
: 想问大家，现在CITI的股票这么低，是否是买入的好时候。我想做长期持有，考虑现在
: 国有化，应该是不会倒闭的吧，到现在应该只能向上吧，还有可能继续跌吗？
b*e
3 楼
这个不一定吧，要看怎么国有化法，三百个人国有化，就会有三百种国有化法
当然，如果有清零的几率，我就不会投
【在 s********n 的大作中提到】
: 你搞清楚什么叫国有化了吗? 如果完全国有化意味着所有股票清零你知道吗？
当然，如果有清零的几率，我就不会投
【在 s********n 的大作中提到】
: 你搞清楚什么叫国有化了吗? 如果完全国有化意味着所有股票清零你知道吗？
s*n
4 楼
如果完全国有化，自然是清零了。留着private share holder在怎么能叫完全国有化呢？
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: 这个不一定吧，要看怎么国有化法，三百个人国有化，就会有三百种国有化法
: 当然，如果有清零的几率，我就不会投
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: 这个不一定吧，要看怎么国有化法，三百个人国有化，就会有三百种国有化法
: 当然，如果有清零的几率，我就不会投
b*e
5 楼
可以强买强卖啊
呢？
【在 s**********n 的大作中提到】
: 如果完全国有化，自然是清零了。留着private share holder在怎么能叫完全国有化呢？
呢？
【在 s**********n 的大作中提到】
: 如果完全国有化，自然是清零了。留着private share holder在怎么能叫完全国有化呢？
m*t
6 楼
Even if they may not literally become $0, nationalization still
means serious dilution at least. Besides a government is
probably the worst choice to run a business, which it will
as the majority shareholder.
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: 这个不一定吧，要看怎么国有化法，三百个人国有化，就会有三百种国有化法
: 当然，如果有清零的几率，我就不会投
b*e
7 楼
About your latter point, my point is USPS may not be very efficient and may
be losing money, but it works, it won't kill the economy. On the other side,
SMART banks can kill the economy entirely. Simply put, when people have
different responsibility and different reward structure, people do things
differently.
【在 m******t 的大作中提到】
:
: Even if they may not literally become $0, nationalization still
: means serious dilution at least. Besides a government is
: probably the worst choice to run a business, which it will
: as the majority shareholder.
be losing money, but it works, it won't kill the economy. On the other side,
SMART banks can kill the economy entirely. Simply put, when people have
different responsibility and different reward structure, people do things
differently.
【在 m******t 的大作中提到】
:
: Even if they may not literally become $0, nationalization still
: means serious dilution at least. Besides a government is
: probably the worst choice to run a business, which it will
: as the majority shareholder.
b*e
8 楼
If a business is too big to fail, then making money is not the most
important thing at all. And, due to the way how a public company runs,
public company cannot solve the problem at all.
may
side,
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: About your latter point, my point is USPS may not be very efficient and may
: be losing money, but it works, it won't kill the economy. On the other side,
: SMART banks can kill the economy entirely. Simply put, when people have
: different responsibility and different reward structure, people do things
: differently.
important thing at all. And, due to the way how a public company runs,
public company cannot solve the problem at all.
may
side,
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: About your latter point, my point is USPS may not be very efficient and may
: be losing money, but it works, it won't kill the economy. On the other side,
: SMART banks can kill the economy entirely. Simply put, when people have
: different responsibility and different reward structure, people do things
: differently.
b*e
9 楼
btw,你抢整
【在 m******t 的大作中提到】
:
: Even if they may not literally become $0, nationalization still
: means serious dilution at least. Besides a government is
: probably the worst choice to run a business, which it will
: as the majority shareholder.
【在 m******t 的大作中提到】
:
: Even if they may not literally become $0, nationalization still
: means serious dilution at least. Besides a government is
: probably the worst choice to run a business, which it will
: as the majority shareholder.
m*t
10 楼
may
side,
True, although since the point at discussion is how it'll play out for
individual
share holders of these banks. So if like you said the government will focus
more on saving the economy than making money when running these banks,
I'm not so sure that that's something shareholders would enjoy.
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: About your latter point, my point is USPS may not be very efficient and may
: be losing money, but it works, it won't kill the economy. On the other side,
: SMART banks can kill the economy entirely. Simply put, when people have
: different responsibility and different reward structure, people do things
: differently.
m*t
11 楼
LOL, right, now nobody delete any post!
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: btw,你抢整
x*m
12 楼
我听说国家是不可能完全国有化花旗的，不然就要把亏损计算在政府的开支里面。为了
不这样，规定控股不能超过80%。不过花旗的股票的上扬有多大空间。
不这样，规定控股不能超过80%。不过花旗的股票的上扬有多大空间。
相关阅读
IT'S THE FUND COMPANY, NOT THE MANAGER zz[转载] Re: some questions about 401ktone of demon30-year performanceUranium Fundamentals[1] History (转载)[转载] Re: 请教个Roth IRA的入门问题[合集] [共同网]日本外汇储备3月底突破8千亿美元[原创]不相信index者的心理分析为什么BOND涨涨不休？关于主动管理和理性投资why index beats most active funds study is biasedQQQ, Naz, and Nasdaq 100 的换算The Mythical Recovery [4]30-year performance back-testingDon't Wait for Dow 10,000nice Morgan Stanley article on ETF[转载] Re: Need help on Roth IRAmy opinions on AASOHU's 1Q2004 CC SummaryNTES 1Q2004 CC Summary