Why did vikram pandit quit

T he 'resignation' turned out to be a shocker. The stock zoomed five per cent. Furthermore, when Pandit arrived at Citi in , it was in the epicentre of a meltdown.

P andit staged what was generally regarded as a pretty solid rescue act. He created a separate unit to flog off its toxic assets, streamlined Citigroup into a relatively small bank that focused on investment banking, and consumer and corporate lending. He even managed to pay the government back in full by issuing new shares, while boosting its funding profile by migrating to more stable, long-term debt. Click NEXT to read more Ratings agency Moody's upped its outlook on Citi from negative to stable.

Yet, these accomplishments were not enough to save Pandit his scalp. T he investment was considered a dud and had to be eventually wound down. The fact that Citi's shares had lost close to 90 per cent of its value during Pandit's five-year reign didn't help much either. However, according to reports making the rounds, the real rumblings began earlier this year when Pandit, who had begun to try and forge closer relationships with the Federal Reserve in Washington, decided to try and buy back shares and increase dividend payments to keep shareholders happy.

That is, find a cheap stock with sound fundamentals and good prospects for growth — and buy in to take advantage of the. Dow Futures 35, Nasdaq Futures 15, Russell Futures 2, Crude Oil Gold 1, Silver Vix CMC Crypto 1, FTSE 7, Nikkei 29, Read full article. Henry Blodget.

October 26, , PM. Did Pandit say "resign? Story continues. Recommended Stories. Motley Fool. Investor's Business Daily. The Wall Street Journal. Yahoo Finance UK. The Times's detailed story today on Citi's deVikrafication is a fun read and adds a lot of information about Mike O'Neill's coup and its aftermath, but I submit to you that if you found any of it surprising you need to pay more, or probably much less, attention to the conventions of corporate infighting.

I pay a medium amount of attention, and the day the news came out I conjectured :. So that's pretty much what the Times piece today reveals. The notion that Vikram Pandit left Citi of his own initiative, the day after earnings, with no warning, is so absurd on its face that the fact that Citi and Pandit said that he didn't doesn't even qualify as a lie.

The call on which O'Neill said "Vikram chose to submit his resignation and the board accepted it. Contrary to speculation, no strategic or regulatory or operating issue precipitated the resignation" so clearly meant "we fired the dude because we didn't like him" that O'Neill shouted at Mike Mayo "Our statement is clear. It was! There is precisely one way to read it!

That's the kind of faint-praise statement you make if you fired someone because you didn't like him but he wasn't, like, cooking and eating security guards on company property. The statement where he actually chooses to resign - from an unlimited choice set as opposed to "resign or be fired" - looks very different.

It comes on the earnings call , for one thing. You can manufacture outrage about this in various ways. A CEO leaving a company is a highly material event. Shareholders and employees deserve to know the truth about the circumstances that led to the departure. The shareholders of Citi absolutely did not know the truth about why Victor Pandit quit. The statements that were issued were technically correct, but they contained a huge lie by omission.

And more broadly, given that this sort of statement is apparently what passes for forthrightness and transparency at a major global corporation, it's no wonder that everyone thinks that companies are totally full of crap.

There are two issues here. One is, how much information is owed to the public about a company's reasons and plans and hopes and dreams?