花旗需要深度裁员

    花旗集团（Citigroup）CEO迈克尔·考伯特没能抓住机会，给华尔街留下良好的第一印象。不过，他给人的第二印象似乎为他赢得了不少支持者。

    十月中旬，花旗集团似乎已经乱成一团。在这种形势下，考伯特接替潘伟迪。公司仓促召开了分析师会议，会上，考伯特在压力之下介绍了他计划对银行采取哪些不同的措施。是拆分，还是彻底放弃花旗集团剩余的不良资产？看起来，考伯特自己也是毫无头绪。

    大约两个月后，考伯特给出了答案——裁员11,000人。上周三消息传来，花旗集团股票上涨了7%。

    很明显，一直拒绝裁员的潘伟迪已经不适应这个时代。如今，投资者和华尔街高管最为关注的标准是所谓的“效益比”，及银行开支收益比，而且比率越低越好。突然之间，华尔街希望所有银行都成为沃尔玛（Wal-Mart）。即便强势如高盛（Goldman Sachs），最近也告诉投资者，其目标是成为低成本供应商。

    经过裁员，花旗集团的效益比将达到63%，好于摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）和美国银行（Bank of America）两家竞争对手。摩根大通与美国银行的效益比率分别为65%和86%。然而，并非所有效益比率都生来平等。如果你能证明自己可以产生更高的收益，那么投资者就可以容忍更高的成本。这是所有大银行都面临的问题，但花旗集团的问题似乎比其竞争对手更为严重。

    美国利率处于历史低位，而且美联储（Federal Reserve）近期也没有加息的可能，使得银行贷款收益不断缩水。然而，银行通过投资银行或资产管理等业务获得的手续费收入却不受利息压力的影响。

    不幸的是，花旗集团的投资银行业务一直在苦苦挣扎，通过手续费产生的收入仅占其总收入的约40%，而美国银行和摩根大通则分别为53%和55%。而且，花旗投资银行业务的手续费收入可能进一步缩水。这次花旗裁员的对象约四分之一便是针对投资银行部门。潘伟迪曾经表示要精简银行，这个策略似乎已经成为摆脱华尔街高风险业务的不二法门。

    但如果考伯特也想放弃投资银行业务，必须更大幅度地削减成本。花旗银行竞争对手中以贷款为核心业务的富国银行（Wells Fargo）与美国合众银行（U.S. Bancorp）的效益比非常低，分别为54%和48%。

    Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat missed his chance to make a good first impression. His second impression seems to be winning more fans.

    Corbat took over from Vikram Pandit in mid-October in what appeared to be a chaotic mess. There was a hastily called meeting with analysts in which Corbat was pushed to say what he planned to do differently with the bank. Break it up? Finally dump the rest of Citi's toxic assets? Corbat didn't seem to have a clue.

    Nearly two months later, Corbat has an answer - can 11,000 people. Citi's shares (C) rose on the news Wednesday, up 7%.

    It was clear that Pandit, who resisted mass layoffs, no longer fit the times. The metric that investors and Wall Street execs seem most focused on these days is something called the efficiency ratio. It compares a bank's expenses to its revenue. The lower the number the better. All of a sudden, Wall Street wants to be Wal-Mart. Even the mighty Goldman Sachs (GS) recently told investors its goal is to be the low-cost provider.

    After the layoffs, Citi will have an efficiency ratio of 63%. That's better than its rivals JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Bank of America (BAC), which have ratios of 65% and 86%, respectively. But not all efficiency ratios are created equal. Investors will tolerate higher costs if you can show them that you will be able to produce higher revenue. That's a problem for all the big banks, but more so for Citi than its direct rivals.

    Historically low-interest rates, which the Federal Reserve isn't likely to raise anytime soon, are squeezing loan revenue. Income the banks generate from fees, however, like investment banking or asset management, won't be under the same pressure.

    Unfortunately, Citi, which has struggled in investment banking, only generates about 40% of its revenue from fees, compared to 53% and 55% at Bank of America and JPMorgan, respectively. And that is likely to shrink further at Citi. About a quarter of the bank's cuts will come from its investment bank. Pandit had talked about simplifying the bank, which seemed code for getting out of Wall Street's riskier businesses.

    But if Corbat wants to do that he will have to cut costs much more dramatically than he has. His lending-centric rivals Wells Fargo (WFC) and U.S. Bancorp (USB) have dramatically lower efficiency ratios, of 54 and 48, respectively.