Finance

To understand the impact that artificial intelligence may have on the economy, consider the tractor. Historians disagree about who invented the humble machine. Some say it was Richard Trevithick, a British engineer, in 1812. Others argue that John Froelich, working in South Dakota in the early 1890s, has a better claim. Still others point out that few people used the word “tractor” until the start of the 20th century. All agree, though, that the tractor took a long time to make a mark. In 1920 just 4% of American farms had one. Even by the 1950s fewer than half had tractors. Speculation about the consequences of ai—for jobs, productivity and quality of life—is at fever pitch. The tech is awe-inspiring. And yet ai’s economic impact will be muted unless millions of firms beyond Silicon Valley adopt it. That would mean far more than using the odd chatbot. Instead, it would involve the full-scale reorganisation of businesses and their in-house data. “The diffusion of technological improvements”, argues Nancy Stokey of the University of Chicago, “is arguably as critical as innovation for long-run growth.” The importance of diffusion is illustrated by Japan and France. Japan is unusually innovative, producing on a per-person basis more patents a year than any country bar South Korea. Japanese researchers can take credit for the invention of the qr code, the lithium-ion battery and 3d printing. But the country does a poor job of spreading new tech across its economy. Tokyo is far more productive than the rest of the country. Cash still dominates. In the late 2010s only 47% of large firms used computers to manage supply chains, compared with 95% in New Zealand. According to our analysis, Japan is roughly 40% poorer than would be expected based on its innovation. France is the opposite. Although its record on innovation is average, it is excellent at spreading knowledge across the economy. In the 18th century French spies stole engineering secrets from Britain’s navy. In the early 20th century Louis Renault visited Henry Ford in America, learning the secrets of the car industry. More recently, former ai experts at Meta and Google founded Mistral ai in Paris. France also tends to do a good job of spreading new tech from the capital to its periphery. Today the productivity gap in France between a top and a middling firm is less than half as big as in Britain. During the 19th and 20th centuries businesses around the world became more “French,” with new technologies diffusing ever faster. Diego Comin and Martí Mestieri, two economists, find evidence that “cross-country differences in adoption lags have narrowed over the last 200 years.” Electricity swept across the economy faster than tractors. It took just a couple of decades for personal computing in the office to cross the 50% adoption threshold. The internet spread even faster. Overall, the diffusion of technology helped propel productivity growth during the 20th century.Since the mid-2000s, however, the world has been turning Japanese. True, consumers adopt technology faster than ever. According to one estimate TikTok, a social-media app, went from zero to 100m users in a year. Chatgpt itself was the fastest-growing web app in history until Threads, a rival to Twitter, launched this month. But businesses are increasingly cautious. In the past two decades all sorts of mind-blowing innovations have come to market. Even so, according to the latest official estimates, in 2020 just 1.6% of American firms employed machine learning. In America’s manufacturing sector just 6.7% of companies make use of 3d printing. Only 25% of business workflows are on the cloud, a number that has not budged in half a decade.Horror stories abound. In 2017 a third of Japanese regional banks still used cobol, a programming language invented a decade before man landed on the moon. Last year Britain imported more than £20m-($24m-) worth of floppy disks, MiniDiscs and cassettes. A fifth of rich-world firms do not even have a website. Governments are often the worst offenders—insisting, for instance, on paper forms. We estimate that bureaucracies across the world spend $6bn a year on paper and printing, about as much in real terms as in the mid-1990s.Best and the restThe result is a two-tier economy. Firms that embrace tech are pulling away from the competition. In 2010 the average worker at Britain’s most productive firms produced goods and services worth £98,000 (in today’s money), which had risen to £108,500 by 2019. Those at the worst firms saw no rise. In Canada in the 1990s frontier firms’ productivity growth was about 40% higher than non-frontier firms. From 2000 to 2015 it was three times as high. A book by Tim Koller of McKinsey, a consultancy, and colleagues finds that, after ranking firms according to their return on invested capital, the 75th percentile had a return 20 percentage points higher than the median in 2017—double the gap in 2000. Some companies see huge gains from buying new tech; many see none at all. Although the economics can sound abstract, the real-world consequences are crushingly familiar. People stuck using old technologies suffer, along with their salaries. In Britain, average wages at the least productive 10% of firms have fallen slightly since the 1990s—even as average wages at the best firms have risen strongly. According to Jan De Loecker of ku Leuven and colleagues, “the majority of inequality growth across workers is due to increasing average wage differences between firms”. What, then, has gone wrong?Three possibilities explain lower diffusion: the nature of new technology, sluggish competition, and growing regulation. Robert Gordon of Northwestern University has argued that the “great inventions” of the 19th and 20th centuries had a far bigger impact on productivity than more recent ones. The problem is that as technological progress becomes more incremental, diffusion also slows, since companies have less incentive and face less competitive pressure to upgrade. Electricity provided light and energy to power machines. Cloud computing, by contrast, is needed only for the most intensive operations. Newer innovations, like machine-learning, may be trickier to use, requiring more skilled workers and better management. Business dynamism fell across the rich world in the first decades of the 21st century. Populations aged. Fewer new firms were set up. Workers moved companies less frequently. All this reduced diffusion, since workers spread tech and business practices as they move across the economy. In industries run or heavily managed by the government, technological change happens slowly. As Jeffrey Ding of George Washington University notes, in the centrally planned Soviet Union innovation was world-beating—think of Sputnik—but diffusion was non-existent. The absence of competitive pressure blunted incentives to improve. Politicians often have public-policy goals, such as maximising employment, that are inconsistent with efficiency. Heavily regulated industries make up a big chunk of Western economies today: such sectors, including construction, education, health care and utilities, account for a quarter of American gdp.Could ai break the mould, diffusing across the economy faster than other recent technologies? Perhaps. For almost any firm it is easy to dream up a use-case. No more administration! A tool to file my taxes! Covid-19 may have also injected a dose of dynamism into Western economies. New firms are being set up at the fastest pace in a decade, and workers are swapping jobs more often. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University adds that weaker firms may have a particular incentive to adopt ai, because they have more to gain.ai can also be built into existing tools. Many coders—maybe most—already use ai on a daily basis owing to its integration in everyday coding instruments through Github’s CoPilot. Word processors, including Microsoft Word and Google Docs, will soon roll out dozens of ai features. Not a dinner partyOn the other hand, the biggest benefits from new forms of ai will come when firms entirely reorganise themselves around the new technology; by adapting ai models for in-house data, for example. That will take time, money and, crucially, a competitive drive. Gathering data is tiresome and running the best models fearsomely expensive—a single complex query on the latest version of Chatgpt can cost $1-2. Run 20 in an hour and you have passed the median hourly American wage. These costs will fall, but it could take years for the technology to become sufficiently cheap for mass deployment. Bosses, worried about privacy and security, regularly tell The Economist that they are unwilling to send their data to modify models that live elsewhere. Surveys of small businesses are not encouraging. One, by GoDaddy, a web-hosting company, suggests that around 40% of those in America are uninterested in ai tools. The technology is undoubtedly revolutionary. But are businesses ready for a revolution? ■ More

According to Main Management CEO Kim Arthur, global markets will meaningfully struggle due to the softening greenback.
On Friday, the U.S. dollar index hit a 15-month low.

Investors may want to reduce international exposure right now and stick with the home court.
According to Main Management CEO Kim Arthur, global markets will meaningfully struggle due to the softening greenback.

“One of the highest predicting factors for [the] future performance of international stocks versus U.S stocks is what the U.S dollar does,” Arthur told CNBC’s “ETF Edge” this week. “From 2011 to 2022, the dollar was in a straight bull market, so you were gonna lose in international equities no matter what you did.”
On Friday, the U.S. dollar index hit a 15-month low. It comes about 10 months after it hit a 10-year high.
“The dollar topped last September, okay? So you really have to have an opinion on where the dollar is going. We personally think the dollar is heading down,” said Arthur.
Arthur, who was head of Bank of America’s institutional sales and trading department, believes the dollar will eventually return to a period of strengthening.
“We are way ahead of the rest of the world in terms of fighting inflation. Our inflation numbers are lower than the rest of the world. Our interest rates are higher than the rest of the world,” said Arthur. “So what does that mean? That’s a perfect setup where we’re going to be cutting rates before the rest of the world. And that differential leads to a stronger dollar.”

ETF Action Founding Partner Mike Akins cites another market dynamic that could hurt global stocks: the strong appetite for U.S. mega-cap technology stocks.
“You see more and more flows continuing to go into U.S. stocks. … Very little money is going into the international marketplace. And that kind of just creates itself,” Akins said. “I’m not sure what the catalyst is there, other than to say that it has to start with those big names: Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Tesla, now Google [Alphabet]. Those names that are creating this multiple expansion for the broader S&P 500 because they make up such a large percentage of it. That’s where the catalysts will have to be to see value come back, to see international come back [and] to see emerging come back.”
As of Friday’s close, the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF is up 8% this year. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 is up 17%. More

A UnitedHealth Group health insurance card is seen in a wallet, Oct.14, 2019.
Lucy Nicholson | Reuters

Check out the companies making headlines in midday trading.
JPMorgan Chase — Shares inched 0.6% higher after the bank reported stronger-than-expected results for the second quarter, as it benefited from higher interest rates and better-than-expected bond trading.

related investing news

3 hours ago

2 days ago

Wells Fargo — Wells Fargo shares dipped slightly even after the Wall Street firm topped second-quarter expectations. The bank also said it anticipates higher-than-expected net interest income this year.
UnitedHealth — The health-care giant popped 7.2% after topping expectations for the second quarter on both the top and bottom lines. UnitedHealth also upped the lower end of its full-year guidance. Other health-care stocks rose in sympathy, with Cigna and Elevance Health last up more than 4% each.
Citigroup — Shares of the New York-based lender fell 4% even after the firm reported second-quarter earnings and revenue that topped expectations. Despite the beat, Citi’s revenue fell 1% from a year ago as the decline in markets and investment banking businesses weighed on its results.
JetBlue Airways, American Airlines — JetBlue Airways and American Airlines slid 3.8% and 1.7%, respectively. The two airlines are no longer selling seats on each other’s flights after Thursday, following a court ruling in May that they end their more than two-year partnership.
Microsoft — The software stock finished 0.8% after UBS upgraded it to a buy rating, saying its artificial intelligence opportunity and recent underperformance make it too attractive to ignore.

AT&T — The telecommunications stock sank 4.1% after JPMorgan downgraded it to neutral from overweight, citing competition concerns. The Wall Street firm also said AT&T’s exposure to cable may limit the upside for shares.
State Street — Shares slumped 12.1% after the financial giant’s second-quarter revenue of $3.11 billion missed analyst estimates of $3.14 billion, per Refinitiv. However, State Street beat on earnings, reporting earnings per share of $2.17, versus the $2.10 expected by analysts.
Blackrock — Shares of the asset manager lost 1.6% after reporting second-quarter results. Earnings topped Wall Street’s expectations, but net inflows came up short and showed a decline.
Alcoa — The aluminum stock fell 5.9% following a downgrade to neutral from overweight by JPMorgan. The firm said the stock could struggle as the price for the metal faces downward pressure.
Progressive — Progressive shares gained 1.8%, reversing prior losses, after Wells Fargo downgraded the insurance company to equal weight from overweight, citing growth concerns.
Eli Lilly — The pharmaceutical stock rose 3.5% in midday trading. Eli Lilly said it plans to acquire privately held obesity drug maker Versanis for $1.9 billion.
— CNBC’s Yun Li, Alex Harring, Sarah Min and Michelle Fox contributed reporting. More

Summer 2023 is the most expensive on record to fly to Europe.
Buying a round-trip international flight to Europe for travel in the fall can yield savings of $500 a ticket, on average, relative to summer departure, according to Hopper.
The “shoulder season” around September and October is generally less expensive.
Cities such as Rome, London, Paris and Barcelona have been top destinations for Americans. Travel abroad ramped up as Covid-19 restrictions eased.

Jose A. Bernat Bacete | Moment | Getty Images

Airfare to Europe hit an all-time high this summer. But those dissuaded by the sticker shock can still travel overseas in coming months and cut costs by perhaps hundreds of dollars a ticket.
Flying to Europe from the U.S. during the fall “shoulder season” — in September and October — instead of in the summer will save the average traveler $500 per round-trip ticket, according to data from Hopper, a travel app.

Europe is the most popular overseas destination for U.S. tourists this summer. But travelers to top European cities would save 34%, on average, by going in the fall instead of June, July or August, Hopper found.
More from Personal Finance:Canceled or delayed flight? What to know about your rightsU.S. passport delays may be months longTravel to Europe is no longer a ‘screaming, bargain-basement’ deal
Consider these examples: Airfare to Rome is $1,284, on average, this summer. It’s $736 this fall, a 43% reduction, or $548 of savings per ticket.
Likewise, those venturing to London would pay $693 in the fall, 32% less than summer’s $1,025. In Barcelona, visitors would fly for $757 in the fall, versus $1,193 in the summer, a 37% savings.
“There is some good news in sight,” Hayley Berg, Hopper’s lead economist, said of prices.

Shoulder-season travel is typically less expensive

Shoulder season is generally a less expensive time to travel. But the savings may be especially noteworthy to prospective buyers due to recent nosebleed costs, experts said.
The price dynamic is guided by supply and demand: Fewer people typically travel in the fall, as kids return to school, for example.
That also means not everyone — such as families with kids, or workers such as teachers whose vacations revolve around summer months — may be able to take advantage of a bargain.  
But those who can travel during the shoulder season would likely get a better overall experience due to milder weather and reduced crowds, said Sally French, a travel expert at NerdWallet.

Why international travel costs are so high

Tourists and locals at the crowded El Postiguet Beach in Alicante, Spain, July 9, 2023.
Marcos Del Mazo | Lightrocket | Getty Images

Costs to travel abroad have soared in 2023 as people who put off international trips during the Covid-19 pandemic indulge their pent-up wanderlust. There has been historic demand for passports and applications for federal travel programs such as Global Entry.
Many Covid-era restrictions have eased, making it easier to go overseas. For example, the U.S. ended a testing requirement for international travelers in June 2022.
Some countries’ borders were still closed last summer, especially those in Asia. Now, just seven nations have some kind of travel restriction in place for vaccinated American travelers, according to Kayak. For unvaccinated American travelers, the number rises to 23.
“This is the first year people don’t have many Covid requirements at all,” French said.

The Colosseum at sunrise in Rome.
Alexander Spatari | Moment | Getty Images

As a result, summer 2023 is the most expensive time on record to travel to Europe, Hopper said. The average ticket costs about $1,200, eclipsing the previous high in 2018 by $50 a ticket.
In Asia, the No. 2 most-popular destination for Americans, average prices are 64% higher than pre-pandemic levels, Berg said.
It’s not just airfare. Staying at a European hotel this summer costs $205 a night, a 37% increase from last year. Cities such as Rome and Madrid have seen prices jump 63% and 41%, respectively, over the last year, Hopper said.

Price doesn’t seem to have dissuaded travelers, in the aggregate, from travel abroad, however.
That makes sense from a money standpoint. The typical American tourist going abroad tends to be wealthier — with an average household income of $110,000 relative to $83,000 for all travelers — and much more optimistic about their personal finances, spilling over into a greater willingness to spend on leisure travel, according to a recent poll by Destination Analysts, a tourism market research firm.

Other travel tips to scout a good deal

Senja island, Norway.
Roberto Moiola / Sysaworld | Moment | Getty Images

Aside from traveling during the off-season, here are some general tips from travel experts on finding a good deal.

Be flexible. Travel midweek (e.g., Tuesday and Wednesday) instead of during the weekend. Consider alternate locations, perhaps a destination such as Scandinavia instead of the most popular cities such as Paris and Rome. Play around with dates and locations using tools such as Google Flights and Explore.
Don’t book flights at the last minute. Book an international flight a few months ahead, if possible.
Use rewards. Now is a good time to use, and not hoard, any frequent flier miles or other benefits.
Leverage credit card benefits. Your credit card may have perks for travel or rental-car insurance, or another benefit. Purchase part or all of a vacation with that card, and you may not need to buy separate insurance.
Keep other costs in mind. If you find a good deal on airfare, don’t overlook other costs such as lodging before booking. They may amount to a bigger cost than airfare, depending on the length of stay and destination. More

Binance plans to lay off between 1,500 and 3,000 employees through the year in response to an ongoing Justice Department probe, a current employee familiar with the company’s plans told CNBC. A company spokesperson disputed the higher number.
The company has already laid off 1,000, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier on Friday, and this number is part of the total, CNBC’s source said.
Binance has been charged by both the SEC and CFTC with various securities and commodities violations, while founder Changpeng Zhao has downplayed concerns.

Changpeng Zhao, billionaire and chief executive officer of Binance Holdings Ltd., speaks during a session at the Web Summit in Lisbon, Portugal, on Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2022.
Zed Jameson | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Crypto exchange Binance is laying off employees in response to an ongoing Justice Department probe that is likely to end with a consent decree or settlement, according to a current employee who is familiar with the company’s plans.
The cuts will eliminate 1,500 to 3,000 of Binance’s global workforce, this person told CNBC, and will take place through the end of the year. The Wall Street Journal previously reported on Friday that 1,000 employees have already been laid off, and those layoffs are part of the total planned, the source told CNBC. This person asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to talk to the press about internal matters.

related investing news

The Justice Department probe will likely reshape the company fundamentally, the employee told CNBC. If Binance opts to settle the DOJ allegations, it could result in a multi-billion dollar payment. Reuters has reported that federal prosecutors have been weighing anti-money laundering violations and sanctions evasion charges, allegations that would make it difficult for Binance or founder Changpeng Zhao to continue to get licenses to operate.
A Binance spokesperson disputed that the cuts would impact 3,000 employees, saying that the high-end number was “just not right.”
The spokesperson said, “As we prepare for the next major bull cycle, it has become clear that we need to focus on talent density across the organization to ensure we remain nimble and dynamic. This is not a case of rightsizing, but rather, re-evaluating whether we have the right talent and expertise in critical roles.”
Binance has faced significant regulatory challenges over the last few months, culminating in lawsuits from the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission over alleged mishandling of customer assets and the operation of an illegal, unregistered exchange in the U.S.
Binance founder Changpeng Zhao has repeatedly dismissed concerns about the future of the exchange, even after being personally named in the SEC’s lawsuit. Binance itself has suffered significantly since the lawsuits from U.S. regulators, with exchange outflows running into the hundreds of millions. The company has also seen a number of key executive departures. More

JPMorgan Chase executives warned that tougher regulations in the wake of bank failures this year would raise costs for consumers and businesses.
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said that other financial players could end up winners.
“This is great news for hedge funds, private equity, private credit, Apollo, Blackstone,” Dimon said, naming two of the largest private equity players. “They’re dancing in the streets.”

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, testifies during the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing titled Annual Oversight of the Nations Largest Banks, in Hart Building on Sept. 22, 2022.
Tom Williams | CQ-Roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images

JPMorgan Chase executives warned Friday that tougher regulations in the wake of a trio of bank failures this year would raise costs for consumers and businesses, while forcing lenders to exit some businesses entirely.
When asked by Wells Fargo analyst Mike Mayo about the impact of changes proposed by Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr in a speech earlier this week, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said that other financial players could end up winners.

related investing news

“This is great news for hedge funds, private equity, private credit, Apollo, Blackstone,” Dimon said, naming two of the largest private equity players. “They’re dancing in the streets.”
Blackstone and Apollo didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on Dimon’s remarks.
Banks face requirements to hold more capital as a cushion against risky activities from both U.S. and international regulators. Authorities are proposing higher capital requirements for banks with at least $100 billion in assets after the sudden collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in March. But that also coincides with a long-awaited set of international rules spurred by the 2008 financial crisis referred to as the Basel III endgame.

Rise of the shadow banks

“How much business leaves JPMorgan or the industry if capital ratios go up as much as potentially proposed?” Mayo asked.
CFO Jeremy Barnum said that banks would raise prices on end users of loans and other products before ultimately deciding to leave some areas entirely.

“To the extent we have pricing power and the higher capital requirements means that we’re not generating the right return for shareholders, we will try to reprice and see how that sticks,” Barnum said.
“If the repricing is not successful, then in some cases, we will have to remix and that means getting out of certain products and services,” he said. “That probably means that those products and services leave the regulated perimeter and go elsewhere.”
After the 2008 financial crisis, heightened rules forced banks to pull back from activities including mortgages and student loans. For corporations and institutional players, acquisitions and other huge loans are now increasingly funded by private equity players like Blackstone and Apollo.
That has contributed to the rise of non-bank players, sometimes referred to as the “shadow banking” industry, which has concerned some financial experts because they generally face lower federal scrutiny than banks. More

Since the company’s collapse during the 2008 recession, Citigroup’s stock has continuously struggled.
In response, Jane Fraser, the CEO of Citigroup, announced a bold shift in the company strategy, doubling down on wealth management.
But despite the shift in strategy, Citigroup’s investment in wealth management hasn’t started to pay off.

Since the company’s collapse during the 2008 recession, Citigroup’s stock has continuously struggled, with shares falling more than 30% over the past five years.
In response, Jane Fraser, the CEO of Citigroup, announced a bold shift in company strategy, and it has exited 14 consumer markets outside of the United States since April 2021.

“What’s been obvious to analysts for a long time is that Citi had become too unwieldy and too big to manage,” said Hugh Son, a banking reporter at CNBC. “Ultimately, a lot of the disparate parts overseas didn’t really have very many synergies between them.”
Citigroup instead announced its plans to divert resources and double down on wealth management. It’s a tactical move that several other major banks like Bank of America and Wells Fargo have adopted in recent years.
“It offers high returns and it creates growth opportunities in areas that are in the early stages of wealth generation like Asia and the Middle East,” according to Mike Mayo, a senior banking analyst at Wells Fargo Securities. “And it comes with less risk of big mishaps so the regulatory treatment is better.”
Despite the shift in strategy, though, Citigroup’s investment in wealth management hasn’t started to pay off. In 2022, the firm expected global wealth management to generate a compound annual revenue growth in the high single digits to low teens.
But, instead, Citigroup’s wealth management revenue fell 5% year over year in the second quarter of 2023.

“It waits to be seen whether Citigroup will be successful,” said Mayo. “I’m skeptical, for as much as I am more positive about Citi’s strategy when it comes to their global payments or banking or markets business. I think it’s to be determined how this wealth management strategy plays out.”
Citigroup declined to provide someone for CNBC to interview for this piece.
Watch the video above to see how Citigroup is planning its comeback. More

Citigroup shares rose in premarket trading after the bank reported second-quarter earnings and revenue that topped expectations.
Despite the beat, Citi’s revenue fell 1% from a year ago as the decline in markets and investment banking businesses weighed on its results.
“Amid a challenging macroeconomic backdrop, we continued to see the benefits of our diversified business model and strong balance sheet,” CEO Jane Fraser said in a statement.

Citigroup shares rose in premarket trading on Friday after the bank reported second-quarter earnings and revenue that topped expectations.
Despite the beat, Citi’s revenue fell 1% from a year ago as the decline in markets and investment banking businesses weighed on its results. Citi said the uncertain macroenvironment and low volatility impacted client activity and market performance.

“Amid a challenging macroeconomic backdrop, we continued to see the benefits of our diversified business model and strong balance sheet,” CEO Jane Fraser said in a statement.
Here’s how the company fared in the quarter compared with what analysts polled by Refinitiv expected from the banking giant.

Earnings per share: $1.33 vs. $1.30
Revenue: $19.44 billion vs. $19.29 billion

Citigroup’s net income fell 36% to $2.9 billion, or $1.33 per share, from $4.5 billion, or $2.19 per share, last year, pressured by higher expenses, high cost of credit and lower revenue.
“Markets revenues were down from a strong second quarter last year, as clients stood on the sidelines starting in April while the U.S. debt limit played out,” Fraser said. “In Banking, the long-awaited rebound in Investment Banking has yet to materialize, making for a disappointing quarter.”
On the bright side, revenue from personal banking and wealth management increased 6% in the quarter to $6.4 billion driven by strong loan growth.

Citi returned a total $2 billion to shareholders through common dividends and share buybacks in the second quarter.
Shares of Citigroup climbed more than 1% in premarket trading. The stock is up 5.4% year to date, outperforming the SPDR S&P Bank ETF (KBE), which is down 14.8%.
Read the earnings release here.
Correction: Citigroup’s net income fell 36% year over year. A previous version misstated the percentage. More