Next CEO to go?

vikram pandit

doubtful, probably cayne

can someone explain why Citi decided to go ahead with him? I know he managed a few division with Morgan but....all I could really find was he lives in a 18 mil apartment at Central Park West..

any info?

can someone explain why Citi decided to go ahead with him? I know he managed a few division with Morgan but....all I could really find was he lives in a 18 mil apartment at Central Park West..

any info?

I believe it is unlikely to be Mack. It would appear that he may have been able to deflect blame onto Cruz and emerge relatively unscathed. I also do not think that the MS board would want to destabilise an organisation which is only just recovering from relatively recent internecine conflicts.

@ aachimp: Cayne may indeed find himself ushered out; though I have a feeling the wily ol’ devil will endure. Given his penchant for Montecristos, he reminded me of Churchill’s: “If you’re going through hell, keep going.”

@ milkman: The simple answer is that nobody else wanted the job.

My own prediction: Dimon. JPM have been quiet, a bit too quiet perhaps.

Dimon is an operational genius. Doubt they'd kick him out.

This isn't MAJOR news by any means but JPMorgan (along with CS and GS) is advising Ingersoll-Rand on its $10 billion acquisition of Trane. Not too shabby. Looks like Lazard picked up the entire sell side advisory role.

As for my CEO firing speculation, I haven't the faintest idea. The most evident targets have already received the boot. I vote Blankfein, Fuld, Dimon and Rohner as 100% safe. I put Ackerman, Dougan, Mack and Lewis at 96% for the next year. In the risky bin -- say, ~60% safe -- I place Ospel (even though he's a chairman, not a CEO) and Cayne.

How has Lehman fared in this debacle? I've read mixed reviews on the firm... some are telling me that they emerged relatively unscathed and others are saying they got hit pretty bad. I know they had the lowest amount in writeoffs, at 700 MM, but their core business is in fixed income.

I think Lehman took an $830m writedowns this quarter ($3.5b - "hedges and other items"). By all accounts, it seems that Lehman hedged a significant portion of its subprime exposure. In my recent reading I have run into two potential concerns for Lehman (neither all that significant):

• Their $80b+ in mortgage instruments (NON-subprime). I don't think anyone is worried about these but the past few months have convinced me to adopt a "never say never" policy. However, if quality mortgage securities lose significant value, there will be more important things to worry about than Lehman Brothers' earnings (or solvency, for that matter).

• The consequences of their lawsuits in Australia. Some pension funds in Australia have accused a Lehman subsidiary of fraudulent sales practices related to CDOs. Not a lot of details available at this point but these cases always have a small chance of setting some form of costly legal precedent. (For example, a verdict in the URI vs Cerburus case will set precedent for the rest of the private equity walkout/MAC cases)

• If, somehow, BHP Billiton makes a successful bid for Rio Tinto, then Lehman may lose a spot or two in the global M&A league tables. A successful deal would have to close at $140b+, roughly equivalent to 15-20% of Lehman's YTD announced M&A volume. Maybe I missed something but it looks like Lehman is the only major bank still without a role in this potential deal (even Deutsche managed to get a last-minute advisory role). Who knows... maybe Lehman is just playing it smart by wasting no time on a near-impossible, potential deal or MAYBE it will show up as an advisor to a Chinese bidding consortium instead. It's noteworthy that Lehman also isn't an adviser to any of the likely mining M&A participants (BHP, Rio, Xstrata, Anglo American).

b,

Lehman hedged pretty well, so they mitigated any serious damage.

If anyone is going Id assume Cayne.

Blankfein, Fuld and Dimon are not going anywhere, and Im unsure as to Mack...I doubt he will go anywhere unless voluntarily if Clinton wins the presidency.

Cayne

I'd guess Cayne as well. Not only did BS not fair to well during the credit crisis, but he is by far the oldest of the Wall Street CEOS (at 72 I think). However, because he is also Bear's largest individual shareholder it would be interesting to see what would happen if they try to force him out

bAfter 4Q reports...?

My vote: John Mack

...are greatly exaggerated.

lol, john mack has spoken

...I'm toast...

no bonus for you

Do you think Mack ousted Cruz as a pre-emptive measure to protect his own butt?

I could see airline CEOs getting fired....with the horrible on-time performance this past summer. Neeleman at jetBlue already got fired. and he FOUNDED the damn company.

"We are lawyers! We sue people! Occasionally, we get aggressive and garnish wages, but WE DO NOT ABDUCT!" -Boston Legal-