This area does not yet contain any content.

« SEC v. Landberg: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss SEC Fraud Claim Against CFO | Main | In re El Paso Corp. Shareholder Litigation: Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enjoin Merger Negotiated by CEO »
Wednesday
Apr182012

Citibank and Say on Pay: A Metaphysical Analysis

Shareholders at Citibank rejected the compensation package submitted under the mandatory requirement of say on pay.  Say on pay is an advisory vote by shareholders that was mandated by Dodd-Frank.

The vote gained attention for a number of reasons.  First, it is only the third rejection this year.  Second, it is the first time a major financial institution has experienced a negative vote (the only other bank was Key Bank back in 2010).  Mostly, though, the attention arose because the outcome was essentially unexpected.

Total compensation for Pandit, the CEO at Citigroup, was just shy of $15 million.  That was nothing like the eye popping total compensation paid to the CEO of Apple (he received stock worth close to $400 million) or even the $69.9 million paid to the CEO of CBS.  Moreover, the amount paid to Pandit comes after he received only $1 in the prior year.  Moreover, the amount was not out of line with some other financial firms (Goldman, for example, listed the total compensation for its CEO at $16.1 million).  The amount alone, therefore, does not seem to explain the revolt.

What about share prices?  Citigroup is up since January and down since this time last year.  But on the whole, the drop over the last twelve months has been in the vicinity of 10% (although share prices have fluctuated).  Moreover, the price in late November was in the mid 20s and has since climbed back to the mid 30s.  In other words, the change in share prices does not really explain the no vote. 

Another way to look at the rejection by shareholders is to remember that under say on pay, the company submits not the CEO's compensation, but the compensation required to be disclosed under Item 402 of Regulation S-K.  This requires disclosure of the total compensation for the CEO, CFO, and top three highest paid officers.  In other words, shareholders were really voting on a cluster of compensation packages.  In that regard, the company paid out about $20 million in cash bonuses to the five officers.  Moreover, while Pandit had total compensation of about $15 million, three of the other officers received total compensation in excess of $10 million.  Perhaps some of the unexpected opposition, therefore, came from the rich nature of the compensation package to the five officers. 

But still, this does not seem to be the entire explanation.  Instead, the explanation seems to be more metaphysical.  Citigroup, along with the other large financial institutions, is still suffering from its perceived role in the financial crisis.  Recall that Citigroup had to take massive bailouts from the government during the TARP era.  To the extent having contributed to the crisis and having survived in part because of a government bailout, the Bank has a serious image problem with the public and with shareholders.  It is not helped by the actions brought by regulators over its pre-crisis behavior that involve Citigroup

In short, the traditional compensation analysis for Citigroup does not apply.  As long as Citigroup has a serious image problem, particularly at a time when the economy remains weak, compensation decisions are viewed through the filter of a broader notion of fairness.  This is not fairness in the legal sense. Pandit may have worked very hard last year and he certainly was not overpaid the prior year.  It is fairness from a social perspective.  And application of that kind of fairness suggests that the award of more than $14 million in total compensation, given all of the other factors, looks very unfair.  

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Response: fileice
    theRacetotheBottom - Home - Citibank and Say on Pay: A Metaphysical Analysis

Reader Comments (3)

I posted the news of Citi's public chastisement on my Facebook page with the comment "Yay!".

I said "Yay!" not because I have anything personal against Pandit, but because the pay package just sounded grotesque to me in light of the fact that Citi and other retail banks are foreclosing on people who were not financially savy enough to understand the mortgages they signed up for. (One quarter of Americans make $22,000 a year or less -- why not eliminate the $15 million "rentention award" and use that money to give people checking accounts that really are free.)

As I think should be obvious to everyone, the entire socio-economic context of our age informs this vote: the fact of regulatory capture, the fact that no one has been prosecuted, the fact of financial-related suicides following foreclosures, the fact of growing inequality fueld by predatory lending and credit-card practices, and I could go on and on.

The author seems to be amazed that Citibank shareholders are affected enough by the general social climate to actually mail in their proxies. But Citibank has a lot of shareholders -- make the population in general outraged enough and any given subset is more likely to do something.

This is not just Citi's "image problem" -- it is a very real social catastrophe. It effects real people's lives. Real people who have lost jobs and homes. Real people who probably know at least one Citibank shareholder....

People *want* to react to this crisis. People want to *do* something. So their proxy statement comes in the mail and they say "Hey, maybe I can't pay off my neighbors mortgage for him, but I have the power to do *something*". And they mail in that little card.
April 20, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterKAM
Apparently, ISS was concerned not so much with the amount as the lack of proper performance incentives. Calpers seems to have had the same concerns.

I also think the Old Lane acquisition is in the back (if not the front) of people's minds. Pandit made $165M and since Citi ended up writing down most of the acquisition, one might argue that they essentially purchased him as an executive for that amount. Thus, when some people look at the totality of the circumstances, they don't see an under-compensated executive.

See http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/citigroup-shareholders-reject-executive-pay-plan/
April 20, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Liles
I think you over-estimate the level of information the average shareholder is willing to take the time to gather and digest: most people don't know who Pandit is and about 0.01% of citi sharholders have even heard of Old Lane. According to a separate Dealbook article, ISS recommentations on pay are ignored by investors 90% of the time.

The vote was not about actual facts or actual pay-for-performance.

This was about an iconic company, which has become (rightly or wrongly) a symbolic target, a lightening rod... It honestly did not matter whether the amount that Pandit would get was $15 million, or $150 billion. All that matters is that it is a lot. A lot more than the median US salary of about $45,000 a year. And a lot more than many of the bean-counters' salaries who actually fill out those cards. People are angry.

The anger will go away eventually, but the people at its epicenter would be wise to stop rationalizing the vote as some one-off outlier and begin to come to grips with the social and economic context which this fits into.
May 4, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterKAM

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.