20,000 is really massive number to RIF
If 1K were riffed in January
and we don’t know how many were laid off in February (say 2000?).
Still have around 17K to be riffed beginning March 4. How is this number gonna be spread? 2K a month until December? Anxiety-inducing and demoralizing for employees!
Any guess/speculation?
I just got laid off on March 4. NYC office, marketing team. I'm also 17 wks pregnant so this could not have come at a worse time. The only explanation was "role elimination."
@1ba What department in NYC ?
@n4 yes I just got the news. NYC location.
Just got laid off from citi on 4th March .
Is 4th of March confirmed?
Citi will cut more jobs this year as part of its plan to reduce its workforce by 10%, or 20,000 employees.
In a statement on January 13, the bank said that it will continue to reduce head count in 2026.
"These changes reflect adjustments we're making to ensure our staffing levels, locations and expertise align with current business needs," a spokesperson for Citi said.
The plan was detailed in the company's January 2024 earnings report and could save the bank as much as $2.5 billion. https://www.businessinsider.com/recent-company-layoffs-laying-off-workers-2026#citis-job-cuts-continue-this-year-3
This is the year Jane publically promised to achieve the RoTCE target. She should not wait until the year end as investors will start concerning about the plan. If I were her, I would try to complete it before the end of 1H to avoid sending an unnecessary warning signal to the markets.
@c2 no one is saying layoffs aren’t happening. Just not at the ridiculous scale the real trolls are saying.
My team was let go last week in Tampa. It's happening, not sure why there are trolls saying it's not.
@ag good lord that’s tortured nonsense.
There’s no evidence that 20K people will be laid off this year. Mark has said severance reserves will be at similar or lower levels to prior year. 2OK layoffs represents at a minimum $2B in severance (likely higher if senior staff are involved) which this bank will not absorb. Now will they try to make things miserable so people will leave. yES. Worked for me who retired a year early.
Interesting story on JPM in WSJ.. They spend 10B a year on tech and have said they plan to keep HC steady (320K) as they move people to other roles.
But you slackers still at Citi better learn AI if you don’t want to be a dinasour like me.
@bb you heard wrong
Heard 4000+ went last Tuesday
Citi efficiency ratio is industry worse.
If I had to guess, it will all come down to meeting the estimated market analysts "earnings per share". When companies realize (let's say within the first two months of the quarter) they won't be able to meet the earning per share based on the revenues (income) from business products and services, they will then calculate the number of employees they need to layoff in order to meet the estimated market analysts earning per share. For example: Assume Q1'2026 earning will end on March 31st, let's say the market analysts predict the estimated earnings per share will be $0.58 per share (based on what the companies future guidance announcement were during Q4'25 earning call and the products and services normally sold). Now let's say, the companies CFO is looking at the revenues generated so far on Feb 28 and realizes that they will probably generate about $0.48 per share in revenues by end of March based on the products and services they sell. Therefore they are short by ($0.58-0.48=) $0.10 per share. If they calculate that $0.10 = $80 Million , than they will have to layoff $80M worth of employee overhead cost. If each employees overhead cost (assuming all in USA since different countries pay differently and would have perhaps lower overhead cost compared to USA) is $300,000 then ($80,000,000/$300,000 = 267). That means they would need to layoff around 267 employees in USA (or more depending on the pay in different states) to meet the earning per share of $0.58 . If they cut more than (let's say) 267 employees, their earning per share can increase to (let's say) $0.63 which would show beating the analysts estimates, which may make the share price increase cause people would buy shares as a sign of rewarding the company for beating analyst estimated earnings per share. (This is how I understand it works, but not absolutely sure. And the number in the example were all made up - not true numbers). If someone has a better understanding, please post. Knowledge sharing and learning. Thanks!