CitiGroup investors react over executive pay

Vikram Pandit’s remuneration position considered misplaced

A plan that would have seen the chief executive of Citigroup, Vikram Pandit, receive tens of millions of dollars has been criticised by the company’s shareholders.

About 55 percent of the shareholders either refrained from voting or voted against the plan at a non-binding annual meeting that took place in Dallas recently. This makes Citi the first major US bank to face serious dissent from the majority of shareholders on executive remuneration and only the 12th S&P 500 corporation to lose such a vote.

The outgoing chairman of the group, Richard Parsons, referred to the vote as “a serious matter” and went on to say that there would be a meeting of directors and shareholders where the latter’s objections would be discussed.

Corporate governance advisory groups earlier recommended that shareholders should vote against the pay plan.

The California Public Employee’s Retirement System’s head of corporate governance, Anne Simpson, said: “The golden rule of say on pay is to demonstrate that rewards are being earned for performance… Citi failed that test.” Her organisation voted against the remuneration plan.

Last year Pandit’s total remuneration package was $15m. Of that, $1.7m was his salary.  Then he also received a cash bonus of $5.3m, deferred cash of $4m and deferred stock of $4m.

An analyst at brokerage company CLSA, Mike Mayo, said that Citi has been faced with high executive remuneration and poor share performance for the past ten years.

He added that it was surprising that it took shareholders such a long time to act. He feels that there is not a sufficiently clear link between performance and pay in the company. To qualify for these massive pay outs, he says, management has to cross ridiculously low hurdles.

Both of the two major firms advising shareholders, ISS and Glass Lewis, advised that investors should veto the bank’s plan – something which does not often happen in the US. In 2011 only 41 firms in the Russell 3000, which includes Jacobs Engineering, Hewlett Packard and Stanley Black & Decker, could not harness majority support in similar votes during the first year the law required companies to hold these ballots.

A day before the vote Pandit told shareholders they should not count on any increase in dividends during 2012. He announced improved profits for the first quarter of the year, but said that Citi still had to get permission from the Federal Reserve for share buybacks and increased dividends.

The shareholder decision shocked some of the company’s major investors, who did not expect the results. One of them said: “We never picked up any hint that management were worried.”

Comments: 0
Join the discussion below

The May – June 2013 Issue

Highest corporate tax
rates in Europe

European countries are scrambling to raise every last penny of funds through taxes. But some countries may have gone too far...

Belgium

Though all business taxes in Belgium can be paid online with little effort and preparation, the rates are still sky-high at 57.7 percent, including a staggering 50.8 percent total rate on profits only in social security contributions.

Belarus

In Belarus, a company spends up to 338 hours annually preparing for and paying ten different taxes and duties. The total tax rate has incredibly been lowered to 60.7 percent, from 117.5 percent in 2008.

France

A company in France pays seven different taxes and duties, the sum of which can amount to 65.7 percent of profits; though President François Hollande has announced a wave of business tax rate cuts coming up.

Estonia

A business in Estonia pays 67.3 percent of profits in tax, 37.2 percent exclusively in social security contributions. The country has gone against the grain in Europe by raising businesses taxes from 48.6 percent in 2008 to the current rates.

Italy

While corporate income tax (IRES) in Italy is limited to 38 percent of taxable profit, a company operating in Italy can expect to pay 14 other taxes and duties, including social security contributions, bringing their total payable tax to 68.7 percent of profits, according to the World Bank.

Norway

Norway taxes motor fuels twice, with a road use tax and a CO2 emissions tax. Combined with strikes in the energy sector that have curbed output, the price of gas at a local pump has soared to $10.12 per gallon.

Turkey

Though Turkey sits on the Suez Canal and neighbours many oil rich countries, the price of a gallon of average gas clocks in at $9.41 in Turkish pumps, because of a 60 percent share of taxes. 

Israel

Like Turkey, Israel is surrounded by oil-rich neighbours, but drills very little itself. Gas prices are controlled by the government, so about half of the $9.28 per gallon goes to taxes.

Hong Kong

There are few gas stations in Hong Kong, but the ones available charge up to 76 percent more per gallon than mainland China, where the government caps the cost of fuel. A gallon at the pumps will cost around $8.61 on the island.

Netherlands

Expensive labour costs make the Dutch petrol prices the dearest in Europe, at $8.26 per gallon; though the 57 percent tax add-ons don’t help.

The credit crisis

8 February 2007
HSBC warns of subprime mortgage losses

2 April 2007
New Century goes bus

14 September 2007
Wholesale markets have dried up

17 March 2008
Rescue of Bear Stearns

7 September 2008
Rescue of Fannie Mae

15 September 2008
Lehman Brothers file for bankruptcy

3 October 2008
US congress approves $700bn bailout

14 February 2009
$787bn stimulus approved by congress

 

The effects of the current financial crisis are global and irrefutable. With the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the domino effect of irresponsible public monetary policies, huge levels of unsustainable debt, and a deregulated financial sector, has escalated to the point where no corner of the globe has been left untouched.

1973 oil crisis

October 1973
Syria and Egypt launch an attack on Israel on Yom Kippur and set off a twenty day war;

1977
US President Carter creates Department of Energy, which develops the US strategic petroleum reserve

 

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) used their oil reserves as a weapon with the Arab Oil Embargo against those who supported Israel. By January 1974, world oil prices were four times higher than they were at the start of the crisis, especially in the US, and the shock led to a huge drop in the stock market with NYSE losing $97bn in just six weeks.  The embargo lasted five months, and the effects are still seen today.

German hyperinflation

1922-1923

Hyperinflation
1923 – 1924
Stabilisation

 

The trouble began when Germany missed a repatriation payment, worth about one third of the German deficit in this period. Inflation was already high but by 1923 it was raging. Prices doubled within hours, and by late 1923, it cost 200bn marks to buy a single loaf of bread. People burned money as it was cheaper than buying firewood. Germany eventually regained control of its economy when it introduced the Rentenmark into circulation in 1923, and then the Reichmark in 1924.

The Great Depression

1929-1933
The Great Crash
1934-1939
Recovery and Recession

 

After the decadence of the Roaring Twenties, the 1930s saw the biggest economic slump of all time. The stock market crashed on 29 October 1929, and optimism and decadent living tumbled along with the figures. The GDP fell from $103.6bn in 1929, to $66bn in 1934 and the subsequent years of recovery were the most dramatic in US history.

1907 bankers’ panic

1907
Otto Heinze and his brother Augustus Heinze bought shares of United Copper.

 

The stock market was already cautious over the tight money supply, but the US was thrown into a depression after the stock market fell nearly 50 percent from its peak in 1906. The Heinze brothers thought they could influence market shares but ended up bankrupting lenders that provided the financing to buy the stock. A chain reaction left nine institutions bankrupt. By February 1908, the panic was over and the government created the Federal Reserve system, to prevent banks from exercising too much control over the economy.