[quote=TheBreeze]
By the way, according to the 10-K, Citi has $774 billion in deposits, $205 billion in repurchase agreements, $486 billion in short-term borrowings and long-term debt, $167 in Trading account liabilities and $164 in ‘other’ liabilities. So they have a little over $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities. Their market cap is $15 billion. But yeah, I’m sure Citigroup could keep trucking right along if their creditors refused to roll over the $1 trillion in non-deposit liabilities.
[/quote]

Yes, and if you read the footnotes, you noticed that short-term debt – the stuff that has to be rolled over in less than a year – is just $126 billion, or less than 7% of its funding base. The FHLB borrowings and repurchase agreements are backed by specific collateral as it is.

I will agree with you that the ST debt and (eventually) LT debt would be more expensive if Uncle Sam weren’t backing it. Much more expensive. But… to compare Citi’s balance sheet with Lehman or Bear’s is a stretch considering that 100% of the latter’s funding was non-deposit funding, and over 60% of it ST in nature. So, Citi’s a piece of crap. You’ll get no argument from me there. But it’s a far cry from Lehman and Bear where funding is concerned. That’s comparing apples and oranges.