Vikram Pandit 5 yr= $261M

Seems like a hack piece that does not tell the truth or seems place a lot of blame where they want... (and I have no dog in this hunt)....


First, they bought his firm... Was this purchase only to get him:confused: It seems it is not, so I would not put this in compensation (but hey, I could be wrong... just saying)

He was made CEO in Dec 2007, right before the big losses were taken... since he was not there, he was not responsible for these losses...

To me, it looks like the stock bottomed in early 2009... which seems to track other financial firms... if there is any complaint that someone might have is that since then the stock looks flat when the index has gone up a lot... but I think Citi is still pretty crippled and can not make the moves other big banks can...


I am not trying to defend the guy at all.... heck, he could have been horrible for all I know.... but the article seems to place all the blame on him....
 
Seems like a hack piece that does not tell the truth or seems place a lot of blame where they want... (and I have no dog in this hunt)....
./.
I am not trying to defend the guy at all.... heck, he could have been horrible for all I know.... but the article seems to place all the blame on him....
You mean the media may not be laying out all the facts and in an objective manner so the reader can decide? Shocking! :LOL:

OP: Should the thread title be $261M
 
According to this article, Wall Street, investment bankers, and social good : The New Yorker Citigroup bought the hedge fund company for $800M, of which Pandit got $165M. The OP's article says that Pandit shut down the hedge fund and took a $200M write-off for Citigroup shortly after he joined Citi. Make what you want of that.

To me it sounds like one more bad investment that was made by the former CEO....

Heck, Pandit could have walked away with the $165M and never had become the CEO... he also worked for 2 years at $1 per year....

So, unless there was something in the purchase where they were buying the firm just to get him, like Chase did when they overpaid for Bank One to get Jamie Dimon, I just do not see it being connected...

If there is some article where they said they purchased it so they could have him so he could become CEO some day... then I would agree (look at Chase, it was clear that Dimon was to become CEO in a couple of years)
 
Back
Top Bottom