I'll leave to others commentary on any substantive points which may or may not have been made in Vikram Pandit's WSJ op-ed on Friday; I'm more interested in his use of language. Here's his first and last paragraphs:
If there is any consolation in the latest credit crisis it is the vigorous global debate now unfolding on regulatory reform. Regulators and market participants see an opportunity to reassess, and to get organized around guiding principles that can help financial institutions and financial markets handle the mounting complexities of global trends in business, markets and the economy.
In order to realize all the possibilities in the global trends reshaping our world and our financial systems, we welcome a more robust regulatory architecture that embraces standards broad and clear enough to apply to all participants, but is flexible enough to be adaptable to unforeseeable changes in a dynamic market.
Yes, that final paragraph is one 51-word sentence. And more generally this stuff is just impossible to read. Not all clear thinkers are clear writers, but a strong leader of a global institution must be able to communicate his ideas clearly and effectively. What we can see in this op-ed is a major hole in Pandit's skillset.
Those two paragraphs alone are full of cliché and pablum: even management gurus tend to shy away from talking about something as meaningless as "the mounting complexities of global trends in business". If I were a Citigroup employee and I read this op-ed, all my fears about my bank being taken over by robots and consultants would have been confirmed at a stroke. Pandit simply doesn't come across as human in this op-ed: instead he's some kind of jargon-generation device, talking about "systemic risk umbrellas" and "alternative accounting approaches".
The job of CEO is by far the most outward-facing executive role in any company, and Pandit doesn't seem at all comfortable dealing with the public in general and with his shareholders in particular. In return, his shareholders aren't feeling very comfortable with him: Citigroup shares closed on Friday at $17.25. That's the amount they fell between October 31 and January 22. At a too-big-to-rescue bank, leadership is paramount. Since Pandit clearly can't deliver on that front, it might be time to start thinking about a replacement.
This article has 10 comments:
Lofrano
I do not think that the writing is diffult to read and comprehend for the readers of wsj.
And we have to admire Pandit for calling for a robust regulatory structure instead of opposing regulatory reforms based on free markets dogma,
And it is inappropriate for the CEO of a bank to go into specifics of the reforms through media.
It is particularly unfair to place responsibility on Pandit for the drop in prices of Citi shares.
Are not the share price drops a result of the actual and anticipated write-offs ?
And the write-offs were the result of bad investment decisions that were made before Pandit became CEO .
Is the share price drop is only unique to Citi ?
Lofrano
If anyone has read my previous comments they know I am a fan of Pandit, or at least not a a basher. Having not read the entire OP ED I don't know how cogent an argument Pandit makes in the whole. What I do know is the two paragraphs exhibited here are intellectually sounding but vacuous. Empty. Say nothing but the obvious.
It seems to me that Pandit used lots of big words to say he wanted regulations that worked. Well who dosen''t? Someone tell me what Pandit said beyond that that indicated what he thought should be implemented to make those regulations work? And where was his and others voices when lenders were raking in the cash by making loans that had next to zero chance of being repaid. No one gave a damm about regulation when the cash-cow was sick and dieing. They only developed a thoughtful concern when she stopped giving milk. It is all well and good to say you should have treated Elsie with abit more respect and concern after she's died, but how much insight does that take?
so far at the Seeking Alpha website...It's something you expect to see from an uneducated amateur, not from a professional analyst.