花旗，现在该谈谈潘伟迪了

    美国证券交易委员会(SEC)正在调查花旗集团(Citigroup)前首席执行官潘伟迪离职一事?

    美国证券交易委员会尚未就这篇报道置评,但上周二福克斯商业频道(Fox Business)就是这样报道的。根据福克斯的报道，问题在于披露的时机以及潘伟迪离开是谁的主意——是董事会的主意，还是潘伟迪自己的主意？

    或者两者兼而有之，双方可能都对这个结果比较满意。潘伟迪于10月16日宣布辞职，距离花旗股东对他的薪酬方案投下历史性否决票整整6个月，几乎一天都不差。而在这项投票之前，美国联邦储备委员会(Federal Reserve)刚刚否决了花旗上调股息的请求。

    薪酬方案投票结果和监管机构叫停上调股息，两件事无疑向董事会发出了同一个信号：利益相关方对花旗执行力的不信任。董事会成员知道如果股东们对公司业绩满意，就不会否决高管薪酬方案。【想想苹果公司（Apple）。】几乎同时，迈克•奥尼尔升任花旗独立董事长，令这场花旗人事变动更加扑朔迷离。

    花旗提交的监管文件显示，就在潘伟迪辞职的同一天，约翰•哈文思也辞任花旗总裁、首席营运官以及机构客户业务首席执行官。“这些辞职事件发生在2012年10月15日下班后，”监管文件称。花旗集团的第三季度业绩电话会议于当日早些时候举行，公司在10月16日一早的新闻稿中宣布了这些人辞职的消息。哈文思曾与潘伟迪共同创立Old Lane对冲基金，这家基金后来被花旗收购。

    《纽约时报》（New York Times）报道称，潘伟迪的离开是迈克•奥尼尔提供的三项选择之一。潘伟迪可以选择立即辞职、年底辞职或被无理由辞退。他选择了第一项。这篇报道称，三位董事会成员随后约见了哈文思，称“潘伟迪已主动辞职，我们也想给你这样自行辞职的机会。”

    鉴于董事会手头的一堆烫手山芋，大多数董事都不会选择进行辞职披露。但不管一位董事或高管的离开是否存在令人不安的因素，董事会都有责任确保公司提交的监管文件准确无误。

    要评估有争议的辞职事件并不是件容易的事。科技巨头惠普(HP)对董事汤姆•珀金斯的辞职披露就是一个很好的例子。汤姆•珀金斯后来改变了对辞职的个人解释。美国证券交易委员会（时任主席克里斯•考克斯）对惠普的披露进行了评估，对它提出了批评。

    但从我们目前掌握的信息来看，花旗董事会和监管部门应该仔细评估董事会对Citi Capital Advisors (CCA)所有权变更一事的监督和披露。CCA的资产管理总额超过了180亿美元。“花旗已开始将一些CCA业务从完全由花旗持有、转变成主要由管理层持有，”花旗集团的一位发言人在一份电子邮件中向我证实，彭博社（Bloomberg）此前刊发了相关“划分”的报道。“CCA业务过去向机构客户业务首席执行官约翰（•哈文思）汇报，”花旗发言人在随后的一份电子邮件中写道。“新公司将由管理团队(吉姆•欧布莱恩、乔•多弗曼和其他基金经理)持有，但不包括哈文思。”

    Is the SEC investigating former CEO Vikram Pandit's departure from Citigroup?

    The regulator wouldn't comment on the issue for this article, but that's what Fox Business reported last Tuesday. The issue, according to Fox's reporting, is around the timing of disclosure and whose idea it was for Pandit to leave, the board's or Pandit's.

    Perhaps it was both – and perhaps both were happy with the outcome. Pandit's October 16 resignation announcement came six months -- almost to the day -- following the historic no vote by shareholders on the bank's executive pay. That vote came on the heels of the Federal Reserve's denial of Citi's (C) request to raise itsdividend.

    No doubt the pay vote and the regulatory impasse sent a signal to the board about stakeholders' views of the bank's execution. Board members understand that shareholders don't vote down executive pay if they're happy with a company's performance. (Think about Apple.) Mike O'Neill's ascension as Citi's new independent chair piled on at the very same time to create a cocktail for change at the firm.

    According to a Citi regulatory filing, John Havens also resigned as president and COO of the company and CEO of the bank's Institutional Clients Group the same day that Pandit departed. "These resignations occurred after the close of business on October 15, 2012," the filing stated. Citi's third quarter earnings conference call was held earlier that day -- and the bank announced the exits in an early October 16 press release. Havens had co-founded Old Lane hedge fund with Pandit, which Citi subsequently purchased.

    The New York Times has described Pandit's departure as a choice among three options provided by Mike O'Neill. Pandit could resign immediately, resign at the end of the year, or be fired without cause. He chose the former. Three board members then confronted Havens, according to the report, saying, "Vikram has offered his resignation, and we would like to give you the opportunity to offer yours."

    Given a list of top hot button issues for board deliberation, most directors would not select resignation disclosures. But whether or not there are troubling circumstances surrounding a director or executive's departure, boards have a duty to ensure that the company's filings are accurate.

    Evaluating the facts surrounding contentious resignations is no simple task. HP's (HPQ) exit disclosures when Tom Perkins stepped down from the tech giant's board are a case in point. In that case, under SEC Chair Chris Cox's watch, the SEC mangled its assessment of those disclosures, blaming the company after Tom Perkins' explanations for his departure changed over time.

    Given what we know so far, though, the board and regulators should take a close look at board oversight and disclosures concerning the changes in ownership at Citi Capital Advisors (CCA), which has over $18 billion in assets under management. "Citi has begun transitioning certain CCA businesses from being wholly Citi-owned to being owned primarily by management," a Citigroup spokesperson confirmed in an email to me, after reports of a "carve out" by Bloomberg. "The CCA business reported into John [Havens] as head of the Institutional Clients Group," the spokesperson wrote me in a subsequent email. "The new co will be owned by its management team (Jim O'Brien and Jon Dorfman and other fund managers) but not including Havens."