花旗CEO薪酬飙升千万倍

    花旗集团（Citi）首席执行官潘伟迪正式摘下了花旗一美元先生的帽子。如今，他该不该拿1,500万美元才是问题所在。

    3月8日，花旗集团宣布，2011年向这位首席执行官支付了近1,490万美元的现金和期权。而2010年，潘伟迪还拿着一美元的年薪。退回到2009年，当时他宣称将只领取1美元的年薪，直到花旗恢复盈利。事实上，潘伟迪拿1美元年薪的时间已超出了他应信守的时间。花旗从2010年就已经开始赚钱了。因此，他今年多拿一些，实际上也无可厚非。

    而且花旗集团2011年的表现确实相当出色。全年实现利润110亿美元，较上一年增长了4%。不过，这家银行还有很多地方需要改进。而且，2011年花旗也同意接受几十亿美元的罚款，就其按揭业务违反大量条例达成和解，包括数量不明的问题止赎案，其中很多都发生在潘伟迪任职期间。

    正如我说过的，决定一名首席执行官到底该挣多少钱并不是一件容易的事。这也正是他们能够拿到天价薪酬的原因。但潘伟迪的薪酬看起来仍然过于丰厚了。回到2006年，花旗实现利润215亿美元，或者说是2011年利润的近两倍。按此标准，潘伟迪2011年的薪酬应为2006年时任首席执行官查克•普林斯2,500万美元的一半，或者应该比他自己去年的实际薪资少250万美元。但大多数研究显示，首席执行官的薪酬应当根据投资者眼中的公司价值或市值，而不是实际净利润。从2006年底至今，花旗集团的市值已跌去1,800亿美元，跌幅高达64%。以这个标准计算，潘伟迪应该挣900万美元左右，而不是1,500万美元。而且，所有这些计算的基础是假定普林斯的薪酬不存在泡沫，不过考虑到花旗集团当年不得不靠政府救助才能渡过难关，普林斯当初的薪酬显然偏高。

    更离奇的是花旗集团其他高管2011年也获得了涨薪的待遇。首席财务官约翰•戈斯帕奇的薪酬大增51%，达到了720万美元。花旗总裁约翰•哈文斯拿走了1,300万美元，较上一年增加了36%。不包括潘伟迪在内的其他4名高管薪水合计增长34%达到了4,300万美元。而2011年，华尔街其他人的奖金都在缩水，降幅在14%至25%之间不等。花旗集团自己编制并提交的文件却显示他们的薪酬仅上涨了5%。

    更有甚者，潘伟迪的1美元年薪在某种程度上来说其实一直都只是个假象。2007年，花旗聘用潘伟迪，同时花了8亿美元收购他的对冲基金。但最后发现那个对冲基金其实一文不值。一年后花旗就把它关闭了。虽然如此，潘伟迪还是从这桩交易中赚进了1.65亿美元。

    难道薪酬“沙皇”即将卷土重来？

    译者：早稻米

    Vikram Pandit is officially no longer Citi's $1 man. Whether he should be a $15 million one is the question.

    Yesterday, the bank disclosed that it paid its CEO nearly $14.9 million in cash and options in 2011. That was up from a dollar the year before. Back in 2009, Pandit said he would take a salary of $1 until Citigroup returned to profitability. In fact, Pandit stuck with the meager check longer than he had to. Citi made money in 2010. So you can't really fault the guy for taking more this year.

    And Citigroup did have a pretty good 2011. It earned $11 billion, up 4% from the year before. Still, the bank has a lot to fix. And 2011 was a year in which Citigroup agreed to billions of dollars in fines to settle claims that it broke numerous rules in its mortgage operations, including an untold number of questionable foreclosures, many of which happened on Pandit's watch.

    As I have said before, determining what a CEO should make isn't easy. That's how they can get away with such high pay. But Pandit's pay still looks rich. Back in 2006, Citi made $21.5 billion, or nearly double what the company made last year. By that measure, Pandit's pay should be half of the $25 million then-CEO Chuck Prince made in 2006, or $2.5 million less than what he was actually paid. But most studies show that CEOs are paid based on what investors think their company is worth, or market capitalization, not actual earnings. Since the end of 2006, Citigroup's market cap has plunged $180 billion or 64%. By that measure, Pandit should be making roughly $9 million, not $15 million. And all that is based on that fact that the Prince wasn't grossly overpaid, which, given that Citigroup had to be bailed out by the government, he clearly was.

    Even more curious is the 2011 pay hikes for the rest of Citi's executive team. CFO John Gerspach's pay jumped 51% to $7.2 million. John Havens, Citigroup's president, took home nearly $13 million, up 36% from the year before. All told, the pay of Citigroup's top four executives excluding Pandit rose 34% to $43 billion. All this comes in a year in which the rest of Wall Street saw their bonuses cut anywhere from 14% to 25% depending on who you believe. And Citigroup's own ran- and-file only saw a 5% jump in their pay.

    What's more, Pandit's $1 pay at some level was always an illusion. When Citigroup hired Pandit in 2007 it bought out his hedge fund as well for $800 million. The hedge fund, though, turned out to be nearly worthless. And Citigroup closed it a year later. Nonetheless, Pandit pocketed $165 million on the deal.

    Time to bring back the pay czar?