Anyone trying to convince themselves that Vikram Pandit left because of "philosophical differences" is full of crap. Everyone knows he left because he didn't think he was being compensated highly enough.
In 2007, he made $3 million, in 2008 he was supposed to make $38 million, but the bad stock only left his compensation around $3-4 million. Now, shareholders just voted against him receiving $15 million in pay.
He said to Congress he would take a salary of $1 until Citi returned to profitability, but of course that never really happened. He thought he was going to be making Lloyd Blankfein kind of money in the tens of millions with solid stock, but Citi's stock sucks and shareholders don't want to increase his pay. So he was never really compensated like a Wall Street CEO. That's why he left.
However, he did time his resignation well where he was able to leave after Citi had positive earnings. So that's the only reason we're even having this debate.
so you're telling me that a guy purely motivated by money left a job which paid money for a job which pays no money (i.e. jerking it and playing halo)?
sorry if this is off topic but... is this an actual job?? if so, who do i talk to about getting paid several years of backdated salary?
Let's get the facts straight... he didn't get his pay raise because the shareholders think he got too much for his HF. So yes he got paid, handsomely...
Let's say I'm a CEO who also collects art, and I sold a piece of artwork for a 20MM profit. I guess that means I don't deserve to be paid at the company I'm in charge of. Who is anyone to say he got paid "enough" already?
Oh, but what would the shareholders do without their extra $0.35 of dividends, which are about to be taxed to hell anyways.
uh, the people who employ him (i.e. the shareholders?)
Just a slight aside, if anyone honestly believes that Pandit truly earned $1 this year or last year hasn't read this article on Dealbook:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/pandit-a-low-paid-c-e-o-among-wa…
All compensation analysis here is done by Equilar who state that even though he received $1 in 2009 and 2010, his total take home pay was $1.3MM in both of those years. Article does compare Pandit's earnings ($11.9MM) to Dimon's ($23MM) last year. (It should be noted that if you mark his equity bonus to the price when he received it, the value was $13.5MM).
So, yeah he wasn't receiving the same type of comp like Dimon or Blankfein but its not like he was only earning $1 a year. Also- remember that Citi paid him $165MM for his old hedge fund Old Lane Partners.
According to this Bloomberg article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/pandit-s-censured-bonus-unhurt…
"Citigroup will have paid Pandit about $261 million in the five years since he became CEO, including his personal compensation and about $165 million for buying his Old Lane Partners LP hedge fund in 2007 in a deal that led to his becoming CEO. The bank shut Old Lane soon after Pandit took the post, causing a $202 million writedown."
That doesn't include the fact that Citi paid $800MM to acquire Old Lane Partners.
Pandit got paid at Citi. It just looks like the board didn't want to continue paying for subpar performance anymore.
Illo temporibus quam repudiandae. Quo iste et et ut. Expedita in harum voluptatibus amet aut possimus et ducimus.
Dignissimos eligendi sunt explicabo iste. Repudiandae qui et quisquam repudiandae saepe soluta libero. Et quo saepe vero dignissimos. Aut officiis labore explicabo reiciendis et qui maiores. Repellendus assumenda id voluptas.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...