Citi Shares Outstanding Under Pandit: From 500 Million To 3 Billion

Tyler Durden's picture

While earlier we reported that the under Vikram Pandit the stock price of Citi, net of reverse stock splits, has collapsed by 90%, some have inquired how it is possible that the market cap under Pandit has declined by far, far less, or from about $150 billion when Vikram was appointed to CEO, to a little over $100 billion today. The answer is simple: shares outstanding.

Some forget that as part of its numerous rescue operations in early and mid-2009, Citigroup had no choice but to issue equity, and more equity, and then issue some more equity (with even the US government having to step in an be a Citi share and warrant buyer of last resort on occasion), in order to raise cash. In fact, as the chart below shows, net of Citi's 1 for 10 reverse stock split just to keep the company above the dreaded $5/share level, the reason why the market cap has not kept up with the plunge in the stock price, is that under Pandit, the adjusted number of shares outstanding has soared from 500 million (was 5 billion pre split) to just under 3 billion (or 30 billion had the split not taken place). And now you know why courtesy of the massive amount of shares outstanding, the C stock price will likely be very rangebound in perpetuity.

Chart: CapIQ

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Diluted stock bitches

One part equity, nine parts water. Serve on crushed ice with a Fed twist.

Bay of Pigs's picture

Yeah, lets get some whipped cream on that steaming pile of ShCiti....

NotApplicable's picture

And if you look closely at the fine print, you'll see the "one part equity" is itself diluted 1000:1 with equity derivatives.

ebworthen's picture

Yes, rebottled Kamchatka and water in an Absolut bottle; generous pours at the "Grog and Flog"; free peanuts too (in the shell).

francis_sawyer's picture

So many 401k momos ~ so little time (or monthly contribution deductions)...

@CD ~ perfect analogy... It's like Budweiser (1 part beer 9 parts piss water)... cin cin!...

Metalredneck's picture

Like sex in a canoe:  F$%kin' near water.

JenkinsLane's picture

I've always wondered how they can get the cats to sit still for long enough on top of the kegs.

Atlantis Consigliore's picture

Same Fraud Dogs Fleas as $ 3 Trillion QE Printing....


Weimar FED, Uber Alles:

azzhatter's picture

What a guy- any chance Shiti can get him back? Must have been a mistake to fire his worthless thieving ass

LMAOLORI's picture



The real mistake is he gets this amount of money for doing this kind of damage

Shiti Fraud CEO Walks Off With $260 Million After His Bank Loses 88 Percent Of Its Value

 For his five years of leading Citi, Pandit will receive compensation in the neighborhood of $260 million:

If no alterations are made to Pandit’s compensation package, Citigroup will have paid him about $261 million in the five years since he became CEO, including his personal compensation and about $165 million for buying his Old Lane Partners LP hedge fund in 2007 in a deal that led to his becoming CEO. The bank shut Old Lane soon after Pandit took the post, causing a $202 million writedown.

But while Pandit made off like a bandit, shareholders were not so lucky

Overall, Citi lost 88 percent of its value under Pandit. Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal dinged Pandit for having the pay package that was most detached from his company’s performance, as a three-year decline of 27 percent coincided with his making $43 million.


Vikram Pandit's exit from Citigroup: Why now?

Background on Pandit's Ripoff of Taxpayers

Bankers Must Wash Hands Before Returning to Work





blunderdog's picture

No whining. 

Shareholders can't expect a return without a little RISK, can they?

NidStyles's picture

Not if they vote the Fed to give them a bonus.

Seasmoke's picture

Paper is worthless.

debtor of last resort's picture

Example nr. 453.567 of a complete fucked up world. I'm not a trader, i'm just a troll. But i know. Bitchez.

gsh1976's picture

Bove said it is a "screaming buy" and of course there is no mention of his past claims. 

jcaz's picture

So funny to watch him try to pump a stock-  his adjectives get more hysterical with every call-  

Keep it up, Dick-  you'll dig your clients who are in at $320 out any minute with your projections.......

you enjoy myself's picture

so if Ben used the same logic as he does with inflation - claiming there is none only because housing collapsed a little faster than the currency was debased - wouldn't he be correct to say Citi has delivered a flat ROI?  or maybe that any loss of value is just transitory?

LawsofPhysics's picture

Say it with me, "Dilution, bitchez."

Pancho Villa's picture

I would really like to see a chart of Pandit's net worth during his stay at Citi.

Dburn's picture

Pandit is worth more than Citibank's shareholder equity. 


walküre's picture

Hard to believe their shares were ever worth over $500. But then again, look at GOOG or AAPL. What will we say in 5 years when their share prices are down to $35 because revenues aren't going to be and hedge funds keep selling to raise cash flow?

max2205's picture

How could they NOT make their quarter// Ben bought all their underwater mortgages

Mentaliusanything's picture

and a fine collection of badly soiled bankers underwear. I wonder if Ben is a crack addict?

Miss Expectations's picture

When music critics cruelly panned Liberace's Carnegie Hall performance, he famously said,  "I'm laughing all the way to the bank."

Pandit, on the other hand, just laughed and walked away.

kengland's picture

What stupid analysis from ZH. Really? I'm no Pandit defender but let's not ignore that fact that he took over after  Sandy Wiell ran that ship straight into the ground. It was survival at that point. What was Pandit supposed to since there was no fulking capital at that bank? 

Did you forget that TD or are you just use to throwing shit out there to see if it sticks?

AndrewJackson's picture

Seems to me most zerohedgers are just acknowledging what a pos this company/stock. Not to mention, Pandit got paid millions by overseeing a complete collapse in shareholder value. 

ebworthen's picture

I wouldn't mind getting paid $261 million to stand on the deck of a grounded ship and pretend to steer the rudder and shout commands to raise or lower the sails, tack to the wind, or take a sounding - all while on a sandbar.

Plenty of grog in the hold and wenches too; what a deal.

blunderdog's picture

They have to pay those guys a lot or they won't get quality people.

Pure Evil's picture

Wouldn't it have been easier to say, "It's all Bush's fault".

Once you assume the reins of CEO when do the failures become your responsibility?

After five years maybe its time to admit that your responsible for the failures that continue on your watch.

Richard Whitney's picture

This affected the volume figures a great deal. If you go back to the volume numbers before the May 2011 1-10 reverse split, you will see that C often had more daily volume than the rest of the top 10 volume leaders combined. The effect of the 1-10 was to reduce the daily volume regularly by 700-900 million shares per day, sometimes more. Normally, a reverse split doesn't affect voolume numbers in any discernable way, but this one was gigantic. This reverse split caused the volume of a large part of the day to appear to vanish. There were comments later about lackluster NYSE volume, but no one mentioned this split.

ebworthen's picture

"You see, the stock is worth less than in 2007, but there is a lot more of it so it's a break-even, see?"


Kind of like valuing real estate at 2007 prices, regardless of rents or what they could actually sell it for.

Mentaliusanything's picture

a bit like the USD - No brainer really. (where is MY FREE SHIT)

bugs_'s picture

worldcom had 3 billion shares too.

Kiwi Pete's picture

Having contracted in their London office I can say Citibank has a management culture of incompetance. One CEO isn't going to turn that around in a hurry. Especially if the previous CEO has screwed the pooch. I'd say Citi is lucky to still be here in any shape or form and Pandit probably made the best of a bad job.

Not to say that he (or anyone else) is worth $260m over 5 years.