In short: In the same BofA note — Citigroup's conference commentary also well received. Citi's strategists separately call the hike reaction "wobble, then climb."
In short: Cited from the sell side, not the desk: in Wapner's run through today's positioning notes, "UBS is still bullish, but they say diversify — discretionary, financials, healthcare, industrials, utilities. They like Citi today." Part of the broader "there is a lot of focus on areas away from tech and away from momentum" point, alongside Savita Subramanian's list (oil, gas & consumables, metals & mining, banks, leisure products, insurance, consumer finance).
In short: The low-risk way to be long the same rate view: "Citigroup is a large cap value name. We have a $165 price target on it. We'd like to buy it on pullbacks. It should benefit from higher rates." The valuation case is relative: below 1.2× price to tangible book and ~9.5× forward earnings against Goldman at 14-15× and Morgan Stanley at ~16.5× (at $214/share) — "still like a 50% discount… and remains the deepest discount for money center mega banks." The catalyst is the balance sheet clean-up and the wealth-management build under Jane Fraser, who "has done a wonderful job turning Citi around." The honest framing: "we normally wouldn't be buying this, but if you think that interest rates are going to stay high, banks should benefit… if there's a market pullback due to high interest rates, Citi could be an interesting name to add." A model with the turnaround key drivers is in the SSR Q&A tab. (Separately, Citi has been added to Anthropic's IPO underwriting lineup.)
Citigroup is one of the four giant American banks. For a decade it was the problem child — too many businesses in too many countries, poor returns, a share price stuck below the accounting value of its own assets. Under chief executive Jane Fraser it has been selling off the international consumer businesses, simplifying the structure, and building a wealth-management arm that earns steady fees rather than volatile trading profits.
The stock still carries the old reputation. It trades at about nine and a half times next year's expected earnings, and below 1.2 times tangible book value — meaning you pay barely more than the accounting worth of what the bank owns after stripping out goodwill. Goldman Sachs trades near 14-15 times earnings and Morgan Stanley near 16.5 times. Singh's point is simply that the gap is roughly 50% and Citi remains the cheapest of the mega-banks.
The link to the rest of the call is the interest-rate view. Banks make money on the difference between what they pay depositors and what they earn on loans and bonds, and that gap generally widens when rates stay high. If Singh is right that the Treasury cannot force long-term yields back down, then high rates persist, and the banks are the natural beneficiary of the same force that is hurting bonds. His price target is $165.
He is deliberately unenthusiastic about chasing it — "we normally wouldn't be buying this." The instruction is to wait: if high rates cause a broad market sell-off, that is the moment to buy Citigroup, because the sell-off and the reason to own it are the same event.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: Cited alongside BAC and BK as evidence "the banks have just started to come back to life" — pushing higher and breaking out over the last year as the curve steepened.
Citigroup is the third of the lenders Newton names as breaking out — part of his evidence that "the banks have just started to come back to life" rather than only the trading-heavy investment banks.
The underlying driver is the same steepening yield curve that supports the whole sector: cheap short-term funding, higher long-term lending rates, and an economy that is still growing. Newton is expressing a sector overweight; Citigroup is one of its clearer chart confirmations.
22:50Initially, it was more of the capital markets, the investment banks, the Goldman Sachs and the Morgan Stanleys. But just in the last year we've seen more evidence of Bank of America and Bank of New York and Citigroup starting to push higher breakout and make good headway. So, I'm very encouraged actually about the financial sector.
In short: The third mega-bank named in the breakout retrospective — with JPM it broke out in 2024 ("2024, in the case of JPM and C"), a year or two ahead of the range expansions Haymaker is now finding across regional-bank charts. Context for the technical argument, not a call.
In short: His last bank long, told as a lesson: "The last time I owned a bank was when I owned Citigroup, but that was before Jane Fraser became CEO, and I sold it after Citi experienced its umpteenth trading scandal. I had the right thesis, but the wrong management. I should have bought an alternative." He owns no banks today.
Citigroup is his cautionary tale about management risk. He owned it before Jane Fraser became CEO and sold after yet another trading scandal: "I had the right thesis, but the wrong management. I should have bought an alternative."
The lesson he draws is transferable — if the reason to own a stock is a turnaround, the analysis has to include whether the people running it can execute; a correct idea attached to the wrong operator still loses money. He owns no banks today.
18:04It's up over 30% this year, but you could get the same performance by buying just about any other of the large cap banks. As for my portfolio, it's true that I don't own any banks right now. The last time I owned a bank was when I owned Citigroup, but that was before Jane Fraser became CEO, and I sold it after Citi experienced its umpteenth trading scandal.
In short: Josh's "best stock in the market" spotlight: the post-GFC ugly duckling turned around by Jane Fraser — up 65% over the last year (vs PNC 33%, BofA 25%, JPM 18%), International Services the crown jewel, "shrinking to grow profitably," Banamex spin-out in 6–9 months + coming out from under Fed consent orders. Still cheap (best quarterly revenue in a decade, +56% EPS); manage risk off the 110–115 200-day. Jim owns it (final trade — earnings next week).
Citigroup was, for 15 years after the financial crisis, an "impossible to own" stock — a serial disappointment. Brown's "best stock in the market" thesis is that CEO Jane Fraser has genuinely turned it around by "shrinking to grow": selling off weak businesses and concentrating on its crown jewel, International Services (moving money for big companies across borders). The proof: the stock is up 65% over the past year, far ahead of peers like JPMorgan (+18%) and Bank of America (+25%).
Crucially, he thinks there's still room, because over 20 years the stock is still down ~4% a year — the worst of the big banks — so it's early in a real recovery, not late. Coming catalysts: spinning off its Mexican bank Banamex in 6–9 months, and finally escaping the Fed's regulatory "consent orders." It's still cheap (earnings per share jumped 56% last quarter). Jim Lebenthal, a long-time believer, owns it too and made it his final trade with earnings due next week.
In short: Up ~13% in a month — leading the bank-rally month Wapner ran through (vs Goldman more or less flat).
In short: Also up 27% in Q2 with the other bellwether banks as recession fears faded.
14:08Nike and Lululemon are two turnaround stories that are just not turning. Nike was down 21% and Lulu was down 26%. Financials were up 9%. Large investment banks are bellwether stocks for how investors feel about the economy. As recession fears faded, they rallied with Morgan Stanley up 34%, Goldman up 27% and Citigroup also up 27%. The payment space remains a place to avoid.
In short: "A successful banking story" — did a premium deep dive into the "remarkable turnaround" executed by CEO Jane Fraser. A relief vs the AI/energy/inflation drumbeat; careful stock selection feels timely.
Citigroup is one of the big US banks. For years it was a perennial laggard — bloated, scandal-prone, trading below the value of its own assets. Eisman's point: under CEO Jane Fraser it has pulled off a "remarkable turnaround," and he did a full premium deep dive on it.
In an episode dominated by AI overspending, inflation, and war, he frames Citi as a rare "successful banking story" — proof that careful, old-fashioned stock-picking still works. It's the one clearly upbeat name on the page.
11:06The potential good news like the property tax relief because data centers will be required to pay more than their share will likely be buried. Politicians often weaponize potential bad news to show the savior role they can play. Before I get to the rest of the wrap, I would also like to mention that this past Wednesday, June 10th, on Premium, I did a deep dive into Citigroup and the remarkable turnaround executed by CEO Jane Fraser.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.