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
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....