Comments on: Vikram Pandit, “create and capture” victim Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:29:51 +0000 hourly 1 By: Gary2k8 Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:31:46 +0000 You make a very convincing case that a CEO who allows board to conspire for his/her ouster should not have his job. But, you are forgetting shareholders, to whom both CEO and board serve. Board is just the representatives of the shareholders. Board conspired for Pandit’s removal while keeping shareholders in dark and claiming it to be abrupt. Should we call it hiding or lying to shareholders if they knew all along? Do shareholders know how they picked the next CEO? How do shareholders know that board is really serving them, and not their own hidden agendas?

Bigger question is not Pandit’s ability to run the company, it is how board went about his removal which more and more looks like personal affair with no service or rather disservice to shareholders.

By: ThePunisher Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:11:42 +0000 Very good Mr Ben Walsh ,

This means The JOB of CEO is playing internal politics to secure his own job not to Save Bank not to save thousands of jobs of employees.

What a IDIOT statement- You don’t deserve to Be CEO because you didn’t play politics to secure your Job and paid attention to make bank secure from crises.

what do mean by Mr. Ben ?

this…..Vikram was Stupid Indian who had no idea about these things, he thought his job was only to make bank profitable.

So it doesn’t matter that he made bak profitable from crises.

So now some Fking are again free to make bank down by playing politics .

This time where people should support him / Mr. Vikram Pandit.

No wonder If scumbag O’Neil would kick Corbat after some time and become a CEO himself.

By: Giviyz Sat, 27 Oct 2012 04:41:12 +0000 So many grammatical errors in the article. Don’t you proofread?

By: bhacker Sat, 27 Oct 2012 04:19:54 +0000 This is just ignorant and sensationalist journalism…lets just completely ignore any morality and promote the same dog eat dog culture that prevails in the corporate world with no regard to other stakeholders or longer term future of the organization. Exactly why citi was in a mess to start with. The guy was getting things better again just in time for a dumb a** chairman to come in a shaft him for no real reason other that I don’t like your face. And all you need is a retarded write up like this to provide some sort of justification for something anyone would see is completely wrong.

The chairman clearly has his own agenda without looking out for the good of the company and unfortunately even after the GFC nearly wiped out these corporates, some shady personalities still linger on with a me first attitude.

By: ErnestNova Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:42:26 +0000 This seems a bit of a stretch. At this level of management, a CEO should not have to worry about friendly fire taking him down while he is fighting battles in the marketplace.