在最近与一位政府高级官员的电话通话中，花旗集团(Citigroup)首席执行长潘伟迪(Vikram Pandit，又译潘迪特)揭示了在美国金融业的新世界里谁是老板。潘伟迪说：不要放弃我们。他请求这位官员不要把公司高层赶走。他说：给我们一个行动的机会。潘伟迪濒临把公司的更多控制权交给政府的境地。花旗正与联邦官员就政府增持花旗股份进行谈判，让政府把持有的7.8%的优先股转换成至多40%的普通股。这样做将使得岌岌可危的花旗获得它急需的资金，不过它对自身命运的掌控也会减弱。Getty Images花旗首席执行长潘伟迪花旗的请求可能还会增大分拆这家金融巨人的政治压力。1998年花旗的创建帮助废除了大萧条时期制定的将银行业和股票经纪业分开的法律。对纳税人来说，花旗的请求则蕴藏着风险，原因是在公司破产清算的时候，普通股持有者是最后拿回钱的人。通过采访30多位银行业高管监管机构官员和政府官员等人，我们发现美国政府与花旗的关系从一开始就很坎坷，而它们之间的关系是美国金融体系救助最重要的产物之一。花旗高管试图实现看似不可能的平衡：以让新的联邦主子们满意的方式来经营，同时还要帮助银行从过去5个季度280亿美元的损失中恢复过来。前联邦官员把花旗戏称为“死亡之星”，把花旗对金融体系的威胁比作《星球大战》系列电影里毁灭星球的超级武器。以一位官员的说法，私下里他们认为这个银行巨头是“无法管理的”。Baltimore Business Journal花旗投资银行家凯利(edward kelly)令事情更加复杂的是，政府一会儿要过细地管理花旗，一会儿又忽视它，态度一再变来变去。为了既不做活跃的投资者，也不做被动的投资者，美国政府在没有明确的战略或特别知识的情况下，指挥着这家金融巨头的业务。造成混乱的核心是，没有一个人或是实体负责联邦政府对花旗的监管。这是因为像花旗这样的银行是由很多机构监管的，包括美国联邦储备委员会(Fed)美国财政部金融局(Office of the Comptroller of the Currency)和美国联邦存款保险公司(Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.)。财政部也有监管责任，因为它是向银行注入政府资金的机构。对最初批准了所有这些款项的国会议员们来说，最终结果如何对他们也有影响。所有这些利益相关方一直在向花旗提出各色指令忠告和批评意见，有时甚至是相互矛盾的。比如，美联储官员通知花旗高管，他们有“观察人士的权利”，有权参加银行的董事会会议。目前为止政府尚未出席会议，不过这种可能性让一些花旗高管私下里抱怨美国政府现在对花旗有着“无限权力”。一位熟悉花旗的人把政府的角色比作达摩克里斯之剑，是个时时刻刻悬在他们头上的祸害。一位花旗发言人说，事情总是这样，当监管机构要求向我们的董事会介绍情况时，我们会向他们提供便利。Bloomberg News美国财长盖特纳对潘伟迪和公司董事会未来的疑问已开始出现。周二，潘伟迪到华盛顿与联邦监管机构官员等官员开会。花旗的银行家们本周试图努力让紧张不安的客户冷静下来。一些人担心眼下的不确定会让花旗失去业务。联邦政府在美国金融业中扮演的新角色异常巨大。过去6个月中，美国政府已经向419家银行机构注入近2,000亿美元资金，为多家银行可能的损失提供了至少4,200亿美元的担保，指引数家金融机构合并，制定计划从银行手中收购数千亿美元的问题抵押贷款和其他不良资产。美国政府还同意收购超过1万亿美元的公司短期债券，来支撑商业票据市场。除了针对花旗的行动外，政府最新的工作清单中还包括全面审查对美国国际集团(American International Group Inc.)1,500亿美元的救助。从本周开始，银行监管部门将组织“压力测试”，以评估全国最大的20家银行的健康状况。未来几周，政府在向通用汽车(General Motors Corp.)和克莱斯勒(Chrysler LLC)贷款174亿美元后打算安排一场汽车业的重组，这两家公司眼下又在张口要几十亿美元。花旗寻求更多援助必然会导致与政府因沟通不畅和失误而业已紧张的关系变得更加复杂。在向这家病危银行开始输血的几个月来，政府发出了不少泛泛的指示：命令花旗出售资产募集资金并压缩高风险投资，敦促花旗重组董事会，还警告它如果索要更多纳税人的钱，管理层有可能会被炒鱿鱼。虽然眼下政府暂时保住了花旗，但花旗高管们表示他们只能靠读茶叶占卜来理解如何执行联邦政府的指示。美国政府官员称，花旗的问题很多，这意味着会涉及到多个政府部门，所有这些部门还要参与处理涉及其他银行和经济的问题。一些官员称，他们已向花旗高管大概地交待了政府希望公司如何去做。但这些官员表示，现在还用不着政府对花旗进行手把手的指导。不过眼下争取更多联邦援助的谈判可能会导致政府更直接地插手花旗的经营。在谈到政府与花旗的关系时，该公司发言人在一份声明中称，我们与所有监管部门保持着经常而开放的沟通。近几周来，花旗的高管们一直在接触各政府官员以求指导，但看起来成效甚微。上周潘伟迪与政府首席经济顾问萨默斯(Lawrence Summers)在白宫西厢会面。萨默斯明确表示，他不会就花旗进行专门的讨论。潘伟迪离开时还是没能搞清楚奥巴马政府究竟想如何处理与这家大银行的关系。与此同时，不同政府部门与花旗的沟通一直是参差不齐。上周五下午，当花旗的股价收于18年低点1.95美元后，高管们先后被叫到财政部金融局和纽约联邦储备银行。他们想讨论关于显著扩大政府持股花旗的建议。谈话是富有建设性的，但在财政部发话前，他们无法取得多少进展。因为是财政部代表政府投资花旗优先股的，所以把这些股票转成普通股也需要财政部的同意。到上周末，花旗一直未接到财政部的表态。直到周日晚上，潘伟迪的电话才响了起来。来电话的是财长盖特纳(Timothy Geithner)，他传达的信息是：我觉得我们需要做点什么。盖特纳并未谈及具体，但他表示准备考虑花旗提出的将一大批政府持有的优先股转成普通股的想法。政府不断施加的瘦身压力已迫使花旗高管考虑一系列并不情愿的选择。他们在1月份同意将旗下证券经纪公司美邦（Smith Barney）分拆出去，与摩根士丹利组成合资公司，而多年以来花旗一直坚持说不会分拆这块业务。花旗还把自身一分为二，目的是卖掉更多的资产和业务。眼下花旗高管们还在权衡剥离赢利的墨西哥消费者银行Banamex，虽然公司管理层坚持说这不大可能发生。潘伟迪上周在与萨默斯会面后飞赴墨西哥城，试图让Banamex的员工镇静下来。这些员工们坚信，美国政府会强迫花旗卖掉这块业务。严格检查使得花旗高管们在对一切进行反思，甚至最近公司在纽约州阿蒙克组织的一场静思活动中提供的新鲜烤饼干也成了反思对象。当参加活动的人围坐在一个三层的石火炉旁边，一些与会者大声发问，这些饼干是否也算是在挥霍纳税人金钱。联邦监管部门已开始要求花旗提交有关企业支出和各部门运营预算的更多详细资料。政府还专门要求花旗提交有关任何奢侈派对或其他公司活动的开销信息。此类事无巨细的要求令一些花旗高管感到震惊，他们没有想到会要呈交如此琐碎的信息。花旗已经有先见之明地取消了数次活动，包括原定4月份在迈阿密召开的一次私人投资者会议，哪怕已有数百人为此预定了酒店。一些银行部门的人原来还打算带重要客户去落基山滑雪，这些计划也被迫搁置了。3月份将在哥伦比亚召开的美洲开发银行(Inter-American Development Bank)年会上，花旗集团也将不再举办以往的会后派对。花旗高管们正在领教政治的严酷面。预见到乘坐私人飞机前往华盛顿可能会招来政治风暴，潘伟迪如今转乘商务客机频繁奔赴华盛顿。其他高管则乘坐美国铁路客运公司(Amtrak)的火车出行。承受着要求董事会重组的压力，花旗集团最初暗示可能会在4月份股东会议上作出董事调整。但美联储对此表示反对，施压要求首席董事理查德帕森斯(Richard Parsons)尽快行动。美联储还否决了花旗集团非正式提交的一些可能的董事人选，称华盛顿希望看到“意志坚定具有独立思维的”人选。尽管花旗集团列出了希望获得美联储批准的人选，但那些候选人还没有同意出任董事，他们希望先看看花旗管理层经营和前途会发生什么变化。花旗集团的猜谜游戏还延续到了本月早些时候在华盛顿召开的国会听证会。在听证会上，议员们严厉指责潘伟迪和其他银行高管将各自的机构带入险境。在潘伟迪为听证会做准备的时候，一些花旗管理人士力劝他作出两个让步：为公司专机一事道歉，并同意在花旗恢复盈利之前不拿薪酬。其他人士则认为，这种低头姿态反而会令公司承受的不公正批评显得名正言顺。潘伟迪最终在听证会上作出了上述两项让步。与此同时，花旗还必须止住亏损。潘伟迪上个月对高管们表示，今年第一季度是公司生死攸关的时刻：公司需要扭亏为盈，让政府和投资者相信花旗能够生存。花旗管理人士上周私下对监管部门透露，公司在1月份实现了盈利。上个月信贷和股票市场有所解冻，给整个银行业带来了利好。潘伟迪最近对高级助手说，我们必须证明花旗的核心业务能够挣钱。随着经济直线下滑，一些高管私下怀疑潘伟迪在第一季度实现盈利的目标可能难以实现。美联储最近禁止花旗集团从事收购，并加强了对银行资本使用的限制。在最近花旗集团投资银行部门的一次会议上，花旗集团投资银行主管黑文斯(John Havens)要求属下进一步精简业务，以节约成本。一位管理人士询问是否需要迅速进行调整。据知情人士透露，黑文斯回答道，这是个典型的花旗式问题，暗示花旗决策过程过于漫长。黑文斯对这些管理人士说，这就是为什么盖特纳这些日子看我们这么不顺眼的原因。现在，花旗也浮现了黑色幽默。一些花旗管理人士本月说，他们一直认为在花旗工作就象给政府办事一样──令人头疼的官僚作风和相互抵 的各自为政。Monica Langley / David Enrich相关阅读金融机构黑洞可能试探美国政府极限 2009-02-25花旗，一块难啃的骨头 2009-02-24美国政府将加大对花旗集团的掌控力度 2009-02-23美国政府与花旗就扩大政府持股展开谈判 2009-02-23 本文涉及股票或公司document.write (truthmeter('2009年02月25日17:44', 'C'));花旗集团英文名称：Citigroup Inc.总部地点：美国上市地点：纽约证交所股票代码：C
In a recent phone call with a senior government official, Citigroup Inc. Chief Executive Vikram Pandit revealed who's on top in the new world of American finance.'Don't give up on us,' Mr. Pandit said, pleading with the official not to push out top management. 'Give us a chance to execute.'Mr. Pandit is on the verge of ceding yet more control to the government. Citigroup is in talks with federal officials about the U.S. taking greater ownership of the bank by converting its 7.8% stake of preferred shares to as much as 40% of Citigroup's common stock. Doing so would give the wobbling bank a desperately needed boost to its capital, but less control of its destiny.Citigroup's request could also heighten political pressure to break up the financial titan, whose 1998 creation helped to dismantle the Depression-era law separating the banking and brokerage industries. For taxpayers, Citigroup's quest carries peril, because holders of common shares have the last claim to repayment in the event of a corporate liquidation.Interviews with more than 30 banking-industry executives, regulators, government officials and others show that the U.S.-Citigroup relationship, one of the most important products of the American financial-system bailout, is off to a very rocky start.Citigroup executives are attempting to strike a seemingly impossible balance: Run the business in a way that will please their new federal masters, but also help the bank rebound from $28 billion in losses over the past five quarters.Former federal officials have dubbed Citigroup the 'Death Star,' comparing the bank's threat to the financial system with the planet-destroying super weapon in the 'Star Wars' movies. Privately, in the words of one official, they regard the banking giant as 'unmanageable.'Complicating the issue is the government's back-and-forth between bouts of micromanaging the banking giant and periods of ignoring it. In trying to be neither an active nor a passive investor, the U.S. is directing the business without a firm strategy or particular expertise.Central to the confusion: There's no one individual or entity in charge of the federal oversight of Citigroup.That's because banks like Citigroup are regulated by a patchwork of agencies including the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The Treasury Department also has oversight because it's the one that is injecting government capital into the banks. And members of Congress, who initially approved all that money, have their own stake in how things play out. All these interested parties have been handing Citigroup a jumble of sometimes conflicting orders, advice and critiques.Officials with the Fed, for instance, informed Citigroup executives they have 'observer rights' that entitle them to participate in the bank's board meetings. Though the government hasn't joined in so far, the fact that it might has led some Citigroup executives to complain privately that the U.S. now has 'unlimited power' over the bank. One person close to the company compared the government's role to the sword of Damocles, an ever-present evil hanging over their heads.A Citigroup spokeswoman said: 'It has always been the case that when regulators ask to make a presentation to our board, we accommodate them.'On Tuesday, Mr. Pandit was in Washington for meetings with federal regulators and other officials, as questions loomed about his future and that of the company's board. Citigroup bankers sought to calm nervous clients this week. Some are worried about losing business during the uncertainty.The federal government's new role in American finance has been staggering. In the past six months, the U.S. has injected nearly $200 billion into 419 banking institutions; guaranteed at least $420 billion in potential losses at multiple banks; directed several financial firms to merge; and has outlined plans to buy hundreds of billions of dollars in bad mortgages and other bad assets from banks. The U.S. also has agreed to prop up the commercial-paper market by buying more than $1 trillion of companies' short-term debt.Besides the Citigroup move, the government's latest to-do list includes an overhaul of its $150 billion bailout of American International Group Inc. Starting this week, banking regulators will conduct 'stress tests' to gauge the health of the nation's top 20 banks. And in the coming weeks, the government plans to orchestrate a restructuring of the nation's auto industry, after loaning a total of $17.4 billion to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, both of which are now seeking billions more.Citigroup's bid for yet more help is sure to complicate a partnership already strained by miscommunications and missteps. Since the government shored up the embattled bank with fresh capital over the past few months, it has issued some broad directives: ordering Citigroup to sell assets to raise money and curtail risky investments, urging a reshuffle of its board, and warning that if it needs more taxpayer money, management may be booted.But even as the government has ensured Citigroup's survival for now, bank executives say they have been left to read tea leaves about how to implement federal directives.U.S. officials say Citigroup's problems are wide-ranging, presenting issues for various governmental agencies -- all of which are also engaged in handling problems involving other banks and the economy. Some officials say they have given Citigroup executives broad outlines of what they'd like the company to do. They say thus far it's not been the government's position to give Citigroup a specific playbook about how to put directives in place. The current talks for federal assistance, however, could result in more direct orders on how Citigroup should proceed.Regarding the government's relationship with Citigroup, a company spokeswoman said in a statement: 'We maintain constant and open communication with all of our regulators.'In recent weeks, Citigroup executives have reached out to various government officials for guidance -- with little to show for their effort. Last week, Mr. Pandit met with Lawrence Summers, the government's chief economic adviser, in the White House's West Wing. Mr. Summers made clear that he wouldn't discuss Citigroup specifically, and Mr. Pandit emerged from the meeting with no better idea of where the Obama administration stands in managing ties with the big bank.Communications from government officials, meanwhile, have been spotty. Friday afternoon, after the bank's shares had closed the week at an 18-year low of $1.95, top executives reached out to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the New York Fed. They wanted to discuss Citigroup's proposal to substantially enlarge the government's ownership stake. The conversations were constructive, but they couldn't progress much until they heard from Treasury, the government arm that had invested in Citigroup's preferred stock and therefore would need to bless converting that stake into common shares.Through the weekend, Citigroup didn't hear from Treasury officials. Then on Sunday evening, Mr. Pandit's phone rang. It was Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, calling with a message: 'I think we just need to do something.' Mr. Geithner was short on specifics, but said he was ready to entertain Citigroup's idea of converting a big chunk of the government's preferred stock into common shares.The government's ongoing pressure to slim down the company has forced Citigroup executives to consider a range of unwanted options. They agreed in January to spin off the Smith Barney brokerage unit into a joint venture with Morgan Stanley after insisting for years that they wouldn't part with the business. The bank has also split itself into two parts, with the goal of selling additional assets and businesses.Executives are now wrestling with the possibility of shedding the company's lucrative Banamex consumer-banking unit in Mexico, even as Citigroup officially insists that is unlikely to happen. Following his meeting with Mr. Summers last week, Mr. Pandit flew to Mexico City, trying to calm Banamex employees who were convinced that the U.S. government would force Citigroup to sell the business.The scrutiny has Citigroup executives second-guessing everything, right down to the fresh-baked cookies offered at a recent corporate retreat in Armonk, N.Y. Seated in plush chairs around a three-story stone fireplace, some attendees wondered aloud if the cookies themselves might be portrayed as a frivolous use of taxpayer money.Federal regulators have begun demanding more detailed information from Citigroup about corporate expenses and individual departments' operating budgets. The government is specifically requesting information about expenses for any lavish parties or other corporate events.The detailed nature of such requests startled some Citigroup executives, who weren't expecting to fork over such granular information. The company has responded by preemptively canceling several events, including a private-investor conference in Miami slated for April, where hotel rooms for hundreds of people were already reserved. A few groups of Citigroup bankers had planned to take top clients on ski trips in the Rocky Mountains; those plans were shelved. At the Inter-American Development Bank's annual conference, scheduled for March in Colombia, Citigroup won't be hosting its normal after-hours parties.Citigroup officials are learning the hard way to play politics. Anticipating the political storm he would incite by flying to the nation's capital by private plane, Mr. Pandit now hops on commercial shuttle flights for the frequent trips to Washington. Other executives travel by Amtrak train.Amid pressure to shake up its board, Citigroup initially suggested it would begin making director changes at the April shareholder meeting. The Fed rejected that, pushing lead director Richard Parsons to act sooner. The Fed has also frowned upon some potential nominees that Citigroup has informally pitched to the agency, saying Washington would prefer 'tough-minded independent thinkers.'Though the company has lined up director candidates that it wants the Fed to approve, the candidates haven't agreed to the posts, waiting to see what happens to Citigroup's management, operations and future.Citigroup's guessing game also extended to congressional hearings held earlier this month. Legislators pounded Mr. Pandit and other bank executives for putting their institutions in jeopardy. As Mr. Pandit prepared for the hearings, some Citigroup executives urged him to make two concessions: apologizing for the corporate-jet fiasco and agreeing not to get paid until Citigroup returns to profitability. Others argued that such conciliatory gestures would validate unfair criticisms of the company. Mr. Pandit ultimately made both concessions at the hearing.Meantime, Citigroup has to stop the financial bleeding. Mr. Pandit last month told senior executives that the first quarter is essentially do-or-die: Citigroup needs to turn a profit to persuade the government and investors that it's viable.Last week, Citigroup officials privately told regulators it had a profitable January. Credit and stock markets thawed that month, benefiting banks across the industry. 'We've got to prove that our core business can make money,' Mr. Pandit recently told top aides.With the economy in a tailspin, some executives privately voiced skepticism that Mr. Pandit's goal of a profitable first quarter would be attainable. The Fed recently barred Citigroup from making acquisitions and reinforced restrictions on the bank's use of capital.In a recent meeting with investment bankers, Citigroup's investment-banking chief, John Havens, was pushing his deputies to further streamline operations in order to reduce costs. One executive asked whether the changes needed to be made quickly. The question 'is typical Citi,' Mr. Havens replied, suggesting that decisions at the company take too long, according to a person at the meeting. 'That's why Geithner is so intolerant with us these days,' Mr. Havens told the bankers.Now, gallows humor is setting in. This week, some employees noted that they always thought that working for Citigroup -- with its unwieldy bureaucracy and clashing fiefdoms -- was like working for the government anyway.Monica Langley / David Enrich
In a recent phone call with a senior government official, Citigroup Inc. Chief Executive Vikram Pandit revealed who's on top in the new world of American finance.'Don't give up on us,' Mr. Pandit said, pleading with the official not to push out top management. 'Give us a chance to execute.'Mr. Pandit is on the verge of ceding yet more control to the government. Citigroup is in talks with federal officials about the U.S. taking greater ownership of the bank by converting its 7.8% stake of preferred shares to as much as 40% of Citigroup's common stock. Doing so would give the wobbling bank a desperately needed boost to its capital, but less control of its destiny.Citigroup's request could also heighten political pressure to break up the financial titan, whose 1998 creation helped to dismantle the Depression-era law separating the banking and brokerage industries. For taxpayers, Citigroup's quest carries peril, because holders of common shares have the last claim to repayment in the event of a corporate liquidation.Interviews with more than 30 banking-industry executives, regulators, government officials and others show that the U.S.-Citigroup relationship, one of the most important products of the American financial-system bailout, is off to a very rocky start.Citigroup executives are attempting to strike a seemingly impossible balance: Run the business in a way that will please their new federal masters, but also help the bank rebound from $28 billion in losses over the past five quarters.Former federal officials have dubbed Citigroup the 'Death Star,' comparing the bank's threat to the financial system with the planet-destroying super weapon in the 'Star Wars' movies. Privately, in the words of one official, they regard the banking giant as 'unmanageable.'Complicating the issue is the government's back-and-forth between bouts of micromanaging the banking giant and periods of ignoring it. In trying to be neither an active nor a passive investor, the U.S. is directing the business without a firm strategy or particular expertise.Central to the confusion: There's no one individual or entity in charge of the federal oversight of Citigroup.That's because banks like Citigroup are regulated by a patchwork of agencies including the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The Treasury Department also has oversight because it's the one that is injecting government capital into the banks. And members of Congress, who initially approved all that money, have their own stake in how things play out. All these interested parties have been handing Citigroup a jumble of sometimes conflicting orders, advice and critiques.Officials with the Fed, for instance, informed Citigroup executives they have 'observer rights' that entitle them to participate in the bank's board meetings. Though the government hasn't joined in so far, the fact that it might has led some Citigroup executives to complain privately that the U.S. now has 'unlimited power' over the bank. One person close to the company compared the government's role to the sword of Damocles, an ever-present evil hanging over their heads.A Citigroup spokeswoman said: 'It has always been the case that when regulators ask to make a presentation to our board, we accommodate them.'On Tuesday, Mr. Pandit was in Washington for meetings with federal regulators and other officials, as questions loomed about his future and that of the company's board. Citigroup bankers sought to calm nervous clients this week. Some are worried about losing business during the uncertainty.The federal government's new role in American finance has been staggering. In the past six months, the U.S. has injected nearly $200 billion into 419 banking institutions; guaranteed at least $420 billion in potential losses at multiple banks; directed several financial firms to merge; and has outlined plans to buy hundreds of billions of dollars in bad mortgages and other bad assets from banks. The U.S. also has agreed to prop up the commercial-paper market by buying more than $1 trillion of companies' short-term debt.Besides the Citigroup move, the government's latest to-do list includes an overhaul of its $150 billion bailout of American International Group Inc. Starting this week, banking regulators will conduct 'stress tests' to gauge the health of the nation's top 20 banks. And in the coming weeks, the government plans to orchestrate a restructuring of the nation's auto industry, after loaning a total of $17.4 billion to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, both of which are now seeking billions more.Citigroup's bid for yet more help is sure to complicate a partnership already strained by miscommunications and missteps. Since the government shored up the embattled bank with fresh capital over the past few months, it has issued some broad directives: ordering Citigroup to sell assets to raise money and curtail risky investments, urging a reshuffle of its board, and warning that if it needs more taxpayer money, management may be booted.But even as the government has ensured Citigroup's survival for now, bank executives say they have been left to read tea leaves about how to implement federal directives.U.S. officials say Citigroup's problems are wide-ranging, presenting issues for various governmental agencies -- all of which are also engaged in handling problems involving other banks and the economy. Some officials say they have given Citigroup executives broad outlines of what they'd like the company to do. They say thus far it's not been the government's position to give Citigroup a specific playbook about how to put directives in place. The current talks for federal assistance, however, could result in more direct orders on how Citigroup should proceed.Regarding the government's relationship with Citigroup, a company spokeswoman said in a statement: 'We maintain constant and open communication with all of our regulators.'In recent weeks, Citigroup executives have reached out to various government officials for guidance -- with little to show for their effort. Last week, Mr. Pandit met with Lawrence Summers, the government's chief economic adviser, in the White House's West Wing. Mr. Summers made clear that he wouldn't discuss Citigroup specifically, and Mr. Pandit emerged from the meeting with no better idea of where the Obama administration stands in managing ties with the big bank.Communications from government officials, meanwhile, have been spotty. Friday afternoon, after the bank's shares had closed the week at an 18-year low of $1.95, top executives reached out to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the New York Fed. They wanted to discuss Citigroup's proposal to substantially enlarge the government's ownership stake. The conversations were constructive, but they couldn't progress much until they heard from Treasury, the government arm that had invested in Citigroup's preferred stock and therefore would need to bless converting that stake into common shares.Through the weekend, Citigroup didn't hear from Treasury officials. Then on Sunday evening, Mr. Pandit's phone rang. It was Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, calling with a message: 'I think we just need to do something.' Mr. Geithner was short on specifics, but said he was ready to entertain Citigroup's idea of converting a big chunk of the government's preferred stock into common shares.The government's ongoing pressure to slim down the company has forced Citigroup executives to consider a range of unwanted options. They agreed in January to spin off the Smith Barney brokerage unit into a joint venture with Morgan Stanley after insisting for years that they wouldn't part with the business. The bank has also split itself into two parts, with the goal of selling additional assets and businesses.Executives are now wrestling with the possibility of shedding the company's lucrative Banamex consumer-banking unit in Mexico, even as Citigroup officially insists that is unlikely to happen. Following his meeting with Mr. Summers last week, Mr. Pandit flew to Mexico City, trying to calm Banamex employees who were convinced that the U.S. government would force Citigroup to sell the business.The scrutiny has Citigroup executives second-guessing everything, right down to the fresh-baked cookies offered at a recent corporate retreat in Armonk, N.Y. Seated in plush chairs around a three-story stone fireplace, some attendees wondered aloud if the cookies themselves might be portrayed as a frivolous use of taxpayer money.Federal regulators have begun demanding more detailed information from Citigroup about corporate expenses and individual departments' operating budgets. The government is specifically requesting information about expenses for any lavish parties or other corporate events.The detailed nature of such requests startled some Citigroup executives, who weren't expecting to fork over such granular information. The company has responded by preemptively canceling several events, including a private-investor conference in Miami slated for April, where hotel rooms for hundreds of people were already reserved. A few groups of Citigroup bankers had planned to take top clients on ski trips in the Rocky Mountains; those plans were shelved. At the Inter-American Development Bank's annual conference, scheduled for March in Colombia, Citigroup won't be hosting its normal after-hours parties.Citigroup officials are learning the hard way to play politics. Anticipating the political storm he would incite by flying to the nation's capital by private plane, Mr. Pandit now hops on commercial shuttle flights for the frequent trips to Washington. Other executives travel by Amtrak train.Amid pressure to shake up its board, Citigroup initially suggested it would begin making director changes at the April shareholder meeting. The Fed rejected that, pushing lead director Richard Parsons to act sooner. The Fed has also frowned upon some potential nominees that Citigroup has informally pitched to the agency, saying Washington would prefer 'tough-minded independent thinkers.'Though the company has lined up director candidates that it wants the Fed to approve, the candidates haven't agreed to the posts, waiting to see what happens to Citigroup's management, operations and future.Citigroup's guessing game also extended to congressional hearings held earlier this month. Legislators pounded Mr. Pandit and other bank executives for putting their institutions in jeopardy. As Mr. Pandit prepared for the hearings, some Citigroup executives urged him to make two concessions: apologizing for the corporate-jet fiasco and agreeing not to get paid until Citigroup returns to profitability. Others argued that such conciliatory gestures would validate unfair criticisms of the company. Mr. Pandit ultimately made both concessions at the hearing.Meantime, Citigroup has to stop the financial bleeding. Mr. Pandit last month told senior executives that the first quarter is essentially do-or-die: Citigroup needs to turn a profit to persuade the government and investors that it's viable.Last week, Citigroup officials privately told regulators it had a profitable January. Credit and stock markets thawed that month, benefiting banks across the industry. 'We've got to prove that our core business can make money,' Mr. Pandit recently told top aides.With the economy in a tailspin, some executives privately voiced skepticism that Mr. Pandit's goal of a profitable first quarter would be attainable. The Fed recently barred Citigroup from making acquisitions and reinforced restrictions on the bank's use of capital.In a recent meeting with investment bankers, Citigroup's investment-banking chief, John Havens, was pushing his deputies to further streamline operations in order to reduce costs. One executive asked whether the changes needed to be made quickly. The question 'is typical Citi,' Mr. Havens replied, suggesting that decisions at the company take too long, according to a person at the meeting. 'That's why Geithner is so intolerant with us these days,' Mr. Havens told the bankers.Now, gallows humor is setting in. This week, some employees noted that they always thought that working for Citigroup -- with its unwieldy bureaucracy and clashing fiefdoms -- was like working for the government anyway.Monica Langley / David Enrich
扫一扫
151
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
