BASIS OF PRESENTATION

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

BASIS OF PRESENTATION

BASIS OF PRESENTATION

1.     BASIS OF PRESENTATION

        The accompanying unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements as of September 30, 2012 and for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 include the accounts of Citigroup Inc. (Citigroup) and its subsidiaries (collectively, the Company, Citi or Citigroup). In the opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair presentation have been reflected. The accompanying unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes included in Citigroup's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K) and Citigroup's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012.

        Certain financial information that is normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, but is not required for interim reporting purposes, has been condensed or omitted.

        Management must make estimates and assumptions that affect the Consolidated Financial Statements and the related footnote disclosures. While management makes its best judgment, actual results could differ from those estimates. Current market conditions increase the risk and complexity of the judgments in these estimates.

        Certain reclassifications have been made to the prior-period's financial statements and notes to conform to the current period's presentation.

        As noted above, the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are unaudited.

Principles of Consolidation

        The Consolidated Financial Statements include the accounts of Citigroup and its subsidiaries. The Company consolidates subsidiaries in which it holds, directly or indirectly, more than 50% of the voting rights or where it exercises control. Entities where the Company holds 20% to 50% of the voting rights and/or has the ability to exercise significant influence, other than investments of designated venture capital subsidiaries or investments accounted for at fair value under the fair value option, are accounted for under the equity method, and the pro rata share of their income (loss) is included in Other revenue. Income from investments in less than 20%-owned companies is recognized when dividends are received. As discussed in more detail in Note 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, Citigroup consolidates entities deemed to be variable interest entities when Citigroup is determined to be the primary beneficiary. Gains and losses on the disposition of branches, subsidiaries, affiliates, buildings, and other investments are included in Other revenue.

Significant Accounting Policies

        The Company's accounting policies are fundamental to understanding management's discussion and analysis of results of operations and financial condition. The Company has identified six policies as being significant because they require management to make subjective and/or complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain. These policies relate to Valuations of Financial Instruments, Allowance for Credit Losses, Securitizations, Goodwill, Income Taxes and Litigation Accruals. The Company, in consultation with the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, has reviewed and approved these significant accounting policies, which are further described under "Significant Accounting Policies and Significant Estimates" and Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

ACCOUNTING CHANGES

OCC Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Guidance

        In the third quarter of 2012, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued guidance relating to the accounting for mortgage loans discharged through bankruptcy proceedings pursuant to Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Chapter 7 bankruptcy). Under this new OCC guidance, the discharged loans are accounted for as troubled debt restructurings (TDRs). These TDRs, other than FHA-insured loans, are written down to their collateral value less cost to sell. FHA-insured loans are reserved for based on a discounted cash flow model. As a result of implementing this guidance, Citigroup recorded an incremental $635 million of charge-offs in the third quarter, the vast majority of which related to loans which were current. These charge-offs were substantially offset by a related loan loss reserve release of approximately $600 million, with a net reduction in pretax income of $35 million. Furthermore, as a result of this OCC guidance, as of September 30, 2012, TDRs increased by $1.7 billion, and non-accrual loans increased by $1.5 billion ($1.3 billion of which was current).

Presentation of Comprehensive Income

        In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income. The ASU requires an entity to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income, and the components of other comprehensive income (OCI) either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. Citigroup has selected the two-statement approach. Under this approach, Citi is required to present components of net income and total net income in the Statement of Income. The Statement of Comprehensive Income follows the Statement of Income and includes the components of OCI and a total for OCI, along with a total for comprehensive income. The ASU removed the option of reporting other comprehensive income in the statement of changes in stockholders' equity. This ASU became effective for Citigroup on January 1, 2012 and a Statement of Comprehensive Income is included in these Consolidated Financial Statements.

        Furthermore, under the ASU, an entity would have been required to present on the face of the financial statements reclassification adjustments for items that are reclassified from OCI to net income in the statement(s) where the components of net income and the components of OCI are presented. However, in December 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-12, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05, which deferred this requirement.

        In June 2012, the FASB issued an exposure draft that requires new footnote disclosures of items reclassified from accumulated OCI to net income, which adjustments would not be included in either the Statement of Comprehensive Income or the Income Statement. The exposure draft does not propose an effective date. However, the FASB has indicated it intends to make these requirements effective as soon as possible, potentially as early as the fourth quarter of 2012 or the first quarter of 2013.

Credit Quality and Allowance for Credit Losses Disclosures

        In July 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-20, Receivables (Topic 310): Disclosures about Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and Allowance for Credit Losses. The ASU required a greater level of disaggregated information about the allowance for credit losses and the credit quality of financing receivables. The period-end balance disclosure requirements for loans and the allowance for loan losses were effective for reporting periods ended on or after December 15, 2010 and were included in the Company's 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K, while disclosures for activity during a reporting period in the loan and allowance for loan losses accounts were effective for reporting periods beginning on or after December 15, 2010 and were included in the Company's Forms 10-Q beginning with the first quarter of 2011 (see Notes 12 and 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements). The troubled debt restructuring disclosure requirements that were part of this ASU became effective in the third quarter of 2011 (see below).

Troubled Debt Restructurings (TDRs)

        In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-02, Receivables (Topic 310): A Creditor's Determination of whether a Restructuring is a Troubled Debt Restructuring, to clarify the guidance for accounting for troubled debt restructurings. The ASU clarified the guidance on a creditor's evaluation of whether it has granted a concession and whether a debtor is experiencing financial difficulties, such as:

• •

  Any shortfall in contractual loan payments is considered a concession.

  •

  Creditors cannot assume that debt extensions at or above a borrower's original contractual rate do not constitute troubled debt restructurings because the new contractual rate could still be below the market rate.

  •

  If a borrower doesn't have access to funds at a market rate for debt with characteristics similar to the restructured debt, that may indicate that the creditor has granted a concession.

  •

  A borrower that is not currently in default may still be considered to be experiencing financial difficulty when payment default is considered "probable in the foreseeable future."

        Effective in the third quarter of 2011, as a result of the Company's adoption of ASU 2011-02, certain loans modified under short-term programs beginning January 1, 2011 that were previously measured for impairment under ASC 450 are now measured for impairment under ASC 310-10-35. At the end of the first interim period of adoption (September 30, 2011), the recorded investment in receivables previously measured under ASC 450 was $1,170 million and the allowance for credit losses associated with those loans was $467 million. The effect of adopting the ASU was an approximate $60 million reduction in pretax income for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

Repurchase Agreements—Assessment of Effective Control

        In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-03, Transfers and Servicing (Topic 860)—Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements. The amendments in the ASU remove from the assessment of effective control: (1) the criterion requiring the transferor to have the ability to repurchase or redeem the financial assets on substantially the

agreed terms, even in the event of default by the transferee, and (2) the collateral maintenance implementation guidance related to that criterion. Other criteria applicable to the assessment of effective control are not changed by the amendments in the ASU.

        The ASU became effective for Citigroup on January 1, 2012. The guidance has been applied prospectively to transactions or modifications of existing transactions occurring on or after January 1, 2012. The ASU has not had a material effect on the Company's financial statements. A nominal amount of the Company's repurchase transactions that would previously have been accounted for as sales is now accounted for as financing transactions.

Fair Value Measurement

        In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS. The ASU created a common definition of fair value for U.S. GAAP and IFRS and aligned the measurement and disclosure requirements. It required significant additional disclosures both of a qualitative and quantitative nature, particularly for those instruments measured at fair value that are classified in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Additionally, the ASU provided guidance on when it is appropriate to measure fair value on a portfolio basis and expanded the prohibition on valuation adjustments where the size of the Company's position is a characteristic of the adjustment from Level 1 to all levels of the fair value hierarchy.

        The ASU became effective for Citigroup on January 1, 2012. As a result of implementing the prohibition on valuation adjustments where the size of the Company's position is a characteristic, the Company released reserves of approximately $125 million, increasing pretax income in the first quarter of 2012.

Deferred Asset Acquisition Costs

        In October 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-26, Financial Services—Insurance (Topic 944): Accounting for Costs Associated with Acquiring or Renewing Insurance Contracts. The ASU amended the guidance for insurance entities that required deferral and subsequent amortization of certain costs incurred during the acquisition of new or renewed insurance contracts, commonly referred to as deferred acquisition costs (DAC). The new guidance limited DAC to those costs directly related to the successful acquisition of insurance contracts; all other acquisition-related costs must be expensed as incurred. Under prior guidance, DAC consisted of those costs that vary with, and primarily relate to, the acquisition of insurance contracts.

        The ASU became effective for Citigroup on January 1, 2012 and was adopted using the retrospective method. As a result of implementing the ASU, DAC was reduced by approximately $165 million and a $58 million deferred tax asset was recorded with an offset to opening retained earnings of $107 million (net of tax).

FUTURE APPLICATION OF ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment

        In July 2012, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2012-02, Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment. The ASU is intended to simplify the guidance for testing the decline in the realizable value (impairment) of indefinite-lived intangible assets other than goodwill. Some examples of intangible assets subject to the guidance include indefinite-lived trademarks, licenses and distribution rights. The ASU allows companies to perform a qualitative assessment about the likelihood of impairment of an indefinite-lived intangible asset to determine whether further impairment testing is necessary, similar in approach to the goodwill impairment test.

        The ASU will become effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012. Early adoption is permitted.

Offsetting

        In December 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-11, Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. The standard requires new disclosures about certain financial instruments and derivative instruments that are either offset in the balance sheet (presented on a net basis) or subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar arrangement. The standard requires disclosures that provide both gross and net information in the notes to the financial statements for relevant assets and liabilities. This ASU does not change the existing offsetting eligibility criteria or the permitted balance sheet presentation for those instruments that meet the eligibility criteria. Citi believes the new disclosure requirements should enhance comparability between those companies that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those that prepare their financial statements in accordance with IFRS. For many financial institutions, the differences in the offsetting requirements between U.S. GAAP and IFRS result in a significant difference in the amounts presented in the balance sheets prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and IFRS. The disclosure standard will become effective for annual and quarterly periods beginning January 1, 2013. The disclosures are required retrospectively for all comparative periods presented.

Potential Amendments to Current Accounting Standards

        The FASB and IASB, either jointly or separately, are currently working on several major projects, including amendments to existing accounting standards governing financial instruments, lease accounting, consolidation and investment companies. As part of the joint financial instruments project, the FASB is proposing sweeping changes to the classification and measurement of financial instruments, impairment and hedging guidance. The FASB is also working on a joint project that would require substantially all leases to be capitalized on the balance sheet. Additionally, the FASB has issued a proposal on principal-agent considerations that would change the way the Company needs to evaluate whether to consolidate VIEs and non-VIE partnerships. Furthermore, the FASB has issued a proposed Accounting Standards Update that would change the criteria used to determine whether an entity is subject to the accounting and reporting requirements of an investment company. The principal-agent consolidation proposal would require all VIEs, including those that are investment companies, to be evaluated for consolidation under the same requirements.

        All these projects may have significant impacts for the Company. Upon completion of the standards, the Company will need to re-evaluate its accounting and disclosures. However, due to ongoing deliberations of the standard-setters, the Company is currently unable to determine the effect of future amendments or proposals.