Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) is unmanageable. That's my conclusion after trying to understand its latest quarterly report. The concept behind this 100-armed corporate octopus is that people like to buy all their financial services in one place and therefore it makes sense to be able to sell them a full line of products from stocks to bank accounts. But I suspect that customers don't want all their financial eggs in one basket, so the concept is fatally flawed.
Moreover, its financial performance reveals that Citi is a complex mess whose many different businesses do not diversify its earnings streams. According to its quarterly report, Citi lost $5.1 billion. Most of the losses came from its Securities and Banking (-$6.4 billion), Alternative Investments (-$509 million), and U.S. Consumer (-$476 million) units. Two bright spots were $1.3 billion in earnings from International Consumer and $732 million in Transaction Services.
But wait, there's more in its huge, risky portfolio. Citi has $40 trillion in derivatives -- enormous bets on interest rates and currencies. And it has $1.2 trillion worth of off-balance sheet entities (remember Enron?). Nobody really knows what these are worth or how much they'll cost. And that doesn't even get us to the $262 billion in Level 3 assets -- illiquid, difficult-to-value securities -- which are 2.1 times Citi's $128 billion in capital. That's a pretty thin cushion for future write-downs.
In fact, the irony is that one of the reasons for such a diverse collection of businesses is to reduce risk in down markets. But Citi has borrowed so much money that its capital could easily be wiped out by all the risky securities and businesses it entered with that capital. It borrowed $17 for every dollar of its $2.2 trillion worth of on-balance sheet assets. And if you add in all the off-balance sheet items, it borrowed $339 for every $1 of its combined $43.4 trillion worth of off- and on-balance sheet items.
What Citi needs is to fix its corporate strategy. It has to offer customers a better deal than its competitors so it takes share in the most profitable markets. For instance, if it wants to win in bank deposits, it needs to offer the highest deposit rates and have the most ubiquitous network of ATMs and branches. As I posted, one way to do this might be to split Citi in two: a consumer bank and a commercial bank. These two separate companies would be able to focus on the distinct needs of these two customer groups.
And if Citi's management were sufficiently skilled, it could craft strategies to give those customers better value than the competition. This would revive earnings growth and reward shareholders. And as I posted, I don't think CEO Vikram Pandit's plan to sell $400 billion in assets will do this.
Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter








Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1. how did i know just from the headline that you penned this masterpiece?
Posted at 12:36PM on May 14th 2008 by barneyrin
2. So, the CEO and other upper managment "geniuses are being paid how much in exorbitant salaries, perks, bonuses, and benefits for creating such a gigantic disaster?
This is totally ridiculous. It borders on "insanity" of the stock holders to allow such a fraud to have evolved.
How amny MBAs, Phds, and "experienced money managers" have worked diligently to devleop this disaster? They should all be defrocked, and run out of the financial business.
Off hand it would appear to possibly be "a white collar crime of a pyramid scheme or accounting fraud behind all of this. If so, then criminal charges and prosecution should take place. That is the only deterrent to somewhat protect against this type of "premeditated FRAUD" in the future. (Like Enron, huh?) There is simply too much of this "creative accounting that has undermined the integrity of the market.
Posted at 1:33PM on May 14th 2008 by B. Harrison
3. Dr. Cohan is spot on the money again. It's refreshing to see a financial reporter who is not an apologist for Citi and tells it like it is.
Why is it sooooo evident to EVERYONE but the Board that Pandit does not have a clue and is certainly not CEO material for this enterprise.
The recent bail out of Old Lane customers should have been an obvious clue. Perhaps he is smarter than we think.
After all, who can sell Citi a mediocre company for $800 mil, take the CEO position because no one else in the industry will go near it, and immediately start stuffing his pockets with somewhere like $47 mil in 8 months !!!!!!
OK, he is a brilliant.
Posted at 2:41PM on May 14th 2008 by alan
4. Citi's concept of "all my financial eggs" in one basket defies the very concept of asset diversification.
Posted at 2:56PM on May 14th 2008 by Rose.In.A.Fisted.Glove
5. Board members and several of the past CEO's of Citi must have been in cahoots to get us in the current situation and still be rewarding people like "The Prince" for doing such a crappy job. Shareholders let's get together and dump all these people and get some shareholder control over what these charlatans are doing to us. Only give exemplary pay for excellent performance.
Posted at 11:30AM on May 15th 2008 by Chuck