花旗离任董事长的功与过

    上周五，花旗集团（Citigroup）宣布，董事长理查德•帕森斯即将卸任。消息一出，媒体普遍对帕森斯的任内表现报以赞誉之词。《纽约时报》（New York Times）的标题是《花旗集团企稳，帕森斯决定退休》（With Citigroup Stabilized, Parsons Decides to Retire.）。《华尔街日报》（The Wall Street Journal）称，帕森斯已巩固了首席执行官潘伟迪在公司的地位，强化了花旗在帕森斯领导下总体表现良好的印象。帕森斯自称：“既然今日花旗已有这样好的状态，我认为我离开的时候到了。”但帕森斯留给花旗的东西远不止这么简单。下文将从四方面评判帕森斯任内的功与过：

    • 股价：如果按“10股并1股”的合股方案对花旗股本进行调整（合股本身在公关上可能是不错的一步棋，但花旗股价比一个巨无霸汉堡包还要便宜，对吸引人才和客户都不是件好事），自从帕森斯于2009年2月23日出任花旗董事长以来，花旗的股价已涨了近57%。唯一的问题是与此同时，标准普尔指数（Standard & Poors index）的涨幅更大——差不多同期涨了近80%。而且，过去12个月，花旗股价跌了约25%。结论：帕森斯完败。

    • 盈利：去年，花旗集团实现净利润超过110亿美元。但其中有近20亿美元来自所谓的信贷价值调整，只是账面利润。第四季度，它减少了坏账拨备22.5亿美元（大约是实际坏账减少额的两倍），也虚增了利润。而且，临近年底，盈利看来呈现放缓之势。不过，想想在帕森斯接掌前的一年，花旗集团亏损277亿美元，因此，这方面还是要向帕森斯竖起大拇指。

    • 政府救助：花旗没有像高盛（Goldman Sachs）那样喊出“我们不需要救助”的口号。2008年底、2009年时，如果没有山姆大叔出手相助，花旗几乎肯定会关门大吉。2011年底，花旗还清了450亿美元政府贷款的最后一笔款项。帕森斯推动花旗通过资产出售，还清了政府救助资金，并商定了退出政府救助机制的条款，在这方面绝对值得称颂。因此，花旗能重新站起来，帕森斯功不可没。有人说，花旗和其他大银行由于被视为“大到不能倒”，从标准普尔（Standard & Poors）等评级公司得到的评级好于实际情况。而且，花旗必须稀释股本，以便政府尽快套现。不过，还是要为帕森斯竖起大拇指。

    • 企业文化：或许花旗最大的问题是它全然无视风险，或者说，在一定程度上甚至无视法律。还记得前花旗集团首席执行官查克•普林斯当年的惊人之语吗？当时，他在谈及市场普遍回避的杠杆借贷业务时，抛出了一番著名的言论，声称：“我们仍在跳舞。”因此，要转变“盈利第一、审慎第二”的文化，可能是帕森斯最大的挑战。在这方面，显然，帕森斯的继任者迈克尔•奥尼尔还有太多工作要做。几周前，花旗集团刚刚又支付了1.58亿美元，就欺诈政府担保大量高风险贷款一案达成和解。更糟糕的是，直到2011年7月，花旗的贷款官们还在这么干。贷款审查松懈所蕴藏的风险几年前就应该已经灌输到每个花旗员工的头脑里了。发生这种事真是不应该。因此，在改变企业文化方面，帕森斯不仅乏善可陈，可能还要挨批。

    On Friday, Citigroup (C) said that its chairman Richard Parsons is stepping down. The departure has mostly been greeted with a job well done response. The New York Times headline was "With Citigroup Stabilized, Parsons Decides to Retire." The Wall Street Journal said Parsons had strengthened CEO Vikram Pandit's position at the firm, reinforcing the opinion that things had generally gone well under Parsons watch. Parsons himself said, "Given the strong position that Citi is in today, I have concluded that the time has come for me to take my leave." But Parsons' legacy at the bank is more complicated than that. Below are some ways to parse Parsons' tenure:

    • Stock price: Adjusted for a 10-for-1 split, which in itself was probably a good PR move - having Citigroup's stock trade for less than a Big Mac was not great for employees or customer acquisition - Citigroup's stock has risen nearly 57% since Parsons took over as chairman on February 23, 2009. The only problem is the Standard & Poors index in the same time was up even more - nearly 80% in roughly the same time. And over the past 12 months the stock is down roughly 25%. Verdict: Thumbs down Parson.

    • Earnings: Last year, Citigroup made over $11 billion. But those earnings included nearly $2 billion the bank made on so-called credit value adjustments, which are only profits on paper. And in the fourth quarter it got a boost by putting away $2.25 billion less for loan losses - about double the drop in actual loan loses. What's more, earnings appeared to be slowing toward the end of the year. Nevertheless, the year before Parsons took over Citi lost $27.7 billion. So a big thumbs up for Parsons on that one.

    • Government Dole: There's no Goldman Sachs' "We didn't need the bailout" argument for Citigroup. The bank was most definitely going down without Uncle Sam's support in late 2008 and 2009. The bank paid back the last of the $45 billion it took from the government in late 2011, and Parsons definitely deserves some of the credit for helping the firm push through asset sales that got it off the government's dole, as well as negotiating the terms of its exit from government assistance. So credit Parsons with getting the bank back on its own two feet, mostly. Some say that Citi and other large banks get a better rating than they should from Standard & Poors and others because they are deemed Too Big To Fail. What's more, Citi had to dilute its shares in order to cash out the government as fast as it did. Still, another thumbs up for Parsons.

    • Culture: Perhaps the biggest problem at Citi was its total lack of regard for risk or, at some level, the law. Remember Chuck Prince's famous dancing quote. So turning around the culture of profits first prudence second was perhaps Parsons greatest challenge. And apparently, on that front Parsons' successor Michael O'Neil still has a lot of work to do. A few weeks ago, Citigroup had to pay $158 million to settle a suit that it was pushing faulty loans onto a government insurance program. Worse, Citi's loan officers were doing it as recently as July 2011. The dangers of lax lending should have been drilled into the heads of every employee of Citigroup years ago. Pathetic. So as a culture changer, Parsons not only gets a thumbs down, but a finger wag as well.