The Wall Street Journal says that Citigroup (NYSE:C) CEO Vikram Pandit has the support of the board. That is even with the bank likely to lose another $10 billion in the most recent quarter. Over at The New York Times, the business desk sees Citi sacking its chairman. "Federal banking regulators are pressing Citigroup to shake up its board and replace its chairman, Winfried F. W. Bischoff, in an effort to restore confidence in the beleaguered financial giant."

Since Pandit and Bischoff have overlapped during much of their time in power, the division of blame does not make a great deal of sense.

It would appear the government and board at the bank want to show that someone was punished for Citi's performance. Director Robert Rubin has already left. That was apparently not enough of a sacrifice. The reality of the matter is that the whole board and most of management have been part of the Citi strategic decision-making process for the last year to two years. There is plenty of responsibility to go around.

It sounds like Bischoff is gone. But, it is just a little theater. He did not do anything special except to sit on a board with a number of people who made a remarkable number of mistakes.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Last month, I posted on 2008's eight worst ideas. At the top of my list was deregulation. Robert Rubin, who spent a decade as a director of Citigroup (NYSE: C) and is now retiring, is partly responsible for one very important act of deregulation -- the repeal of Glass-Steagall which separated investment and commercial banking. (It was former Citi CEO Sandy Weill's 1998 merger of his Travelers with Citi that spurred Glass-Steagall's repeal in the 1999 passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which allowed commercial and investment banks to own each other.)

And by bringing down that barrier -- established in the wake of the stock market manipulations of the 1920s enabled by commercial banks that made margin loans to trade stocks -- the U.S. helped usher in the current financial catastrophe. Now the government is gradually reimposing Glass-Steagall -- in effect, if not in law.

Rubin was well rewarded for his decade of "service" to Citi -- taking in $126 million and being paid as an employee while claiming to be a mere advisor. But for that measly sum, Rubin's reputation -- which was at its zenith following his tenure as Treasury Secretary in the 1990s -- is shredded. It probably didn't help that since he joined Citi's board in October 1999, its stock has fallen 82% -- destroying $164 billion in stock market value. Meanwhile, the empire that Weill ushered in -- based on the idea that people wanted to buy all their financial services from one provider -- is being dismantled.

The high and the mighty at Citigroup (NYSE: C) will not take bonuses for 2008. That includes CEO Vikram Pandit, Chairman Win Bischoff, and board member extraordinaire Robert Rubin.

It may save Citi shareholders a few million dollars, but it is hardly much of a penalty for an awful year in which the bank's stock fell 77%. The management at Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) skipped bonuses and their shares were only down 58%.

The bonus cuts are just window dressing. Rubin has made millions of dollars serving on the Citi board. According to Bloomberg, "Pandit got $165 million from Citigroup in 2007 when he sold Old Lane Partners LP, the hedge fund he co-founded and ran."

Put another way, the loss of bonus money probably means very little to these people. The humiliation is a greater pain than the financial sacrifice.

That really leaves no penalty other than to fire the three. So far, the Citi board has shown it does not have the guts to do that.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Vikram Pandit, CEO of Citigroup (NYSE: C), and his top managers may give up their 2008 bonuses as a show that they are willing to make sacrifices after the federal government saved the bank with a huge bailout package. Board member Robert Rubin may have been the first to suggest the move.

According to the FT, "People close to the situation said last week's government rescue made it almost impossible for Citi's board to award cash bonuses to other senior executives, led by chief executive Vikram Pandit."

For anyone not paying attention to the Citi mess, its stock has been down as much as 90% this year. The federal government is pouring money into the bank like water, and the company is still losing money due to consumer credit losses, bad LBO loans, and mortgage derivatives.

To put a point on it, why would the Citi board even consider bonuses in the first place without the risk of being tarred and feathered by shareholders and the government?

"Giving up" bonuses is a meaningless gesture for executives who do not deserve them and would likely get nothing in the first place. Maybe it is nice PR.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

In normal times, market analysts, pundits and economists would not be mulling over names and scuttlebutt regarding the new U.S. President's likely nominee for U.S. Treasury Secretary, months before the inauguration.

But as investors and traders know, these are not normal times, and with United States officials making their best effort to avoid a reappearance of the barter system, names are surfacing regarding who the likely Treasury nominee, should poll leader U.S. Sen. Barack Obama be elected.

The top two contenders, according to TheDeal: Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey, and Lawrence Summers, Secretary of the Treasury during the Clinton Administration (1999-2001).

A second tier candidate, in economist David H. Wang's opinion, is Citigroup (NYSE: C) executive Robert Rubin, who served as Treasury Secretary during the Clinton Administration, 1995-1999.

"All three are qualified, in my view. And there are no perfect or unblemished candidates, given what the nation has gone through in the financial crisis," Wang said. "Each has an appropriate temperament and is in tune with Obama's economic philosophy, which is a mix of center-left here, center-right there, and be willing to try creative and innovative solutions when needed."

And now what could become history's biggest transfer of tax dollars to bail out bad lending begins. Last month Congress passed a bill that gave the Treasury Department $800 billion to bail out Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE). And while it is unclear how much money will be used to bail them out, the general outlines of the soon-to-be-announced terms are becoming clearer than they were last night.

The New York Times and The Washington Post report on five key features as follows:

• Government bankruptcy. Fannie and Freddie will be taken under a conservatorship -- which is similar to a bankruptcy wherein a trustee operates the company so it can be fixed and ultimately sold back to public investors. The bailout would reduce the value of their common and preferred shares "to little or nothing," according to the Times.
• Taxpayers bailout defaulted mortgages. Some share of the $800 billion in taxpayer funds will be used to pay "any losses on mortgages [Fannie and Freddie] own or guarantee," according to the Times.
• Payouts on a quarterly basis depending on reported results. Treasury is trying to dribble the bailout over time. "Instead of giving each company a big capital infusion up front, the government could make quarterly injections as the companies' losses warrant. This would be an attempt to minimize the initial cost of the rescue," according to the Washington Post.

While kudos should be given to the Fed for trying to do whatever it takes to shore up the banking system, what is a bit more worrisome is how both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton approach the problem. Obviously they started out by blaming President Bush for these problems.

According to an AP report:

"Now we are in the soup and we better get ourselves out of it before the consequences get drastic," Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters. Barack Obama said: "History will not judge President Bush kindly for his failure to act in a way that could've prevented or alleviated this economic crisis."

Does Obama think that the President could have prevented the entire economic crisis, had he acted differently? In fact I postulate that one of the major reasons that Wall Street is in the current situation is because of a precedent taken 10 years ago by then Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. He bailed out his Wall Street buddies after they were set to lose billions in bad investments in Asia, among other places. Go figure that after they get saved once, they go ahead a decade later and continue to make investments without taking into account risk. They knew that they could get away with it because they would get bailed out. And guess what? They are going to get bailed out.

The fact is that the Fed, by injecting liquidity, is doing exactly what it should be doing to try and get the banking system back on track. Many economists believe that had the same strategy been implemented in 1929, there never would have been a Great Depression. Back then they took money out of the system and companies went bankrupt. The Fed is making no such mistake this time.

Aaron Katsman is the lead Portfolio Manager and Managing Director of America Israel Investment Associates, LLC. and Senior Editor of IsraelNewsletter.com. DISCLOSURE: Writer's fund has no position in any stock mentioned, as of 3/17/08.

With news the embattled mortgage lender Northern Rock is being nationalized by the British government, until it can find a buyer, the question arises whether this is a good move or not?

Analysts at Bear Stearns said that the government's move is positive for the sector. The expected managed decline in the Northern Rock balance sheet should create less competitive mortgage market conditions," said analyst Robert Sage.

Who is this positive for? Certainly not the consumer. Competitive mortgage markets are the best thing that can happen to a consumer. Why should the consumer have to pay higher mortgage rates? Does this analyst think that the government setting mortgage rates is helpful in anyway? Let's not forget that the banks are responsible for this whole mess. Had they actually been careful in their lending practices, we wouldn't be in the mess we are currently in.

BusinessWeek reports that former Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) Chair Robert Rubin picked Vikram Pandit because Rubin thought Pandit could "drive the vision, drive the execution." I welcome a comment from anyone who can explain what that means. What comes to my mind is that Pandit is going to drive an execution squad behind him ready to gun down anyone who gets in his way.

I am not thrilled with Pandit's ascension and it looks like he is going to turn one of his weaknesses -- a lack of consumer banking expertise in a bank that gets half its income from that business -- into a strength. How so? Pandit looks poised to sell Citi's credit card business. I guess if Citi dumps all the consumer businesses, then he'll know something about the businesses that remain.

To increase the value of Citi's stock, I'd recommend three steps:

As expected, Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) today named Vikram Pandit as its new CEO, replacing the hugely unpopular Charles Prince. Acting CEO Win Bischoff replaced former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin as chairman. Rubin didn't want the job permanently.

As pundits including CNBC's Charles Gasparino pointed out, Citigroup's board didn't feel that Pandit had enough experience to get both jobs. That's no slight against Pandit, who joined New York-based Citigroup after selling the company his hedge fund for $900 million. Few if any people are experienced in the huge variety of business at Citigroup which is why Pandit says "simplifying the company's organizational structure and aligning our businesses and resources with appropriate goals and economic realities will be among our initial priorities."

So what does that mean?

Will Citigroup exit its retail business and focus on corporate banking? Are more job cuts coming down the pike? Investors are demanding quick answers to these and many other questions.

``They need somebody who can get in there and put some color on exactly where the risks are and what they're doing to address that,'' Johnson Asset Management analyst William Fitzpatrick, told Bloomberg News. ``The stock's been in freefall for the last couple of months.''

Shares of Citigroup, which are down 40% this year, fell further today with other financial stocks amid disappointment over the Fed's rate cut announcement

Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) may name Vikram Pandit, the former Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) executive who sold his hedge fund to the New York-based financial services giant for $800 million in July, as the company's new CEO this week, according to various media reports.

The leak of Pandit's front-runner status is an interesting one. Clearly, the beleaguered Wall Street firm thinks that his appointment as CEO is going to be criticized by shareholders, so it decided to "get ahead of the story."

The problem, it seems, may be with former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who became chairman after Chuck Prince was ousted. Rubin doesn't want the job permanently, which raises the question of whether Citigroup will ask him to stick around for a while if Pandit becomes CEO, whether it names a new chairman or whether it gives Pandit both jobs from the start, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Citigroup is in a pickle.

Shareholders abhor a leadership vacuum, but want the next CEO to be someone with whom they have absolute confidence. But if CItigroup doesn't give Pandit both jobs or a clear path toward both jobs, there is a good chance that he will be hired away by a rival firm.

Wall Street has to wonder why so many structured investment vehicles are being downgraded now? Are they really worth so much less than they were a month or two months ago? Since many of their assets do not trade due to a lack of market liquidity, there may never be an answer.

According to The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), "Debt-rating agency Moody's Investors Service, signaling a new turn for the worse for some bank-affiliated funds, said it downgraded or put on review debt totaling $119 billion that was issued by structured investment vehicles that have been paralyzed by lack of investor appetite." The value of many of the SIV assets linked to mortgages dropped by 22% between October 19 and November 21.

Citigroup (NYSE: C) has a continuing problem here. The financial paper adds, "the drop in the market values and the inability to finance the SIV debt is expected to put new pressure on banks such as Citigroup to support the billions of dollars in debt that SIVs face having to pay in coming months."

All of this raises the question of whether the $7.5 billion stake that Citi sold to an investment arm of the Abu Dhabi government will be enough to support the bank's need to improve its balance sheet, or whether it will have to raise additional funds. It begs the question of who would want the job of being Citi CEO, or whether chairman Robert Rubin will have to step into the spot in an attempt to get back some market confidence for the bank.

One thing is virtually certain. Some of the SIVs are near failure. HSBC (NYSE: HBC) took $45 billion in SIVs onto its balance sheet. The bank would not have done this unless an extreme measure was required. The same decision may have to be made at Citi. At $33, down from a 52-week high of $57, many investors think the bank's stock has bottomed.

That would be a mistake.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

This may turn out to be a holiday season only The Grinch could love.

The closely watched Conference Board index of consumer confidence fell to 87.3 in November, its lowest level since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, while house values fell 4.5% in the third quarter, the biggest drop since S&P/Case-Schiller started tracking them in 1988, according to Bloomberg News. Rising foreclosures will sap billions from major metropolitan areas next year, according to a report released today by the National Conference of Mayors.

To put it bluntly, despite the hoopla over Black Friday and Cyber Monday, all indications show that consumers are telling retailers "bah humbug." Does this mean that Santa (AKA Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke) will bring more holiday rate cuts? At least one fed official says no.

In a speech today in Rochester, NY, Charles Plosser of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia said that he isn't inclined to seek another rate cut unless growth in 2008 is much weaker than expected. Besides, a weaker economic outlook for next year was considered when the Fed cut rates in October.

The stock market, though, continues to act irrationally.

Today, the Dow Jones industrial average surged 215 points to 12,958.44 after Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C) got a $7.5 billion investment from a fund tied to the government of Abu Dhabi. That's nice but as Bloomberg News points out, that investment came with a steep price.

"Citigroup Inc., the biggest U.S. bank, is paying a "junk bond'' rate to uphold Chairman Robert Rubin's pledge to preserve the dividend and weather this year's mortgage-market decline," the news service says. "The 11 percent interest rate on $7.5 billion of convertible shares that Citigroup sold to the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is almost double the rate it offers bond investors."

This proves that there is no so such thing as a free lunch.

Bloomberg News reports that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson keeps trying to cheer lead the dollar back up. His boss was a cheerleader at Andover so Paulson fits right in. Just one little problem -- government economic policies are at odds with the cheer.

This topic is important to everyone, particularly now as Americans climb into their cars for Thanksgiving. That's because oil is denominated in dollars so the weaker the dollar gets, the higher oil climbs. If you've been looking at the gas pumps recently, you know that the price of gas is rising.

Paulson's problem is he seems to think that confidence in the currency comes from repeating the phrase "strong U.S. economy." Or as he put it: "The U.S. has a very competitive, strong economy that's proven itself over many years. The dollar has been the world's reserve currency since World War II and there's a reason."

With all the focus on the US Dollar's current free-fall and pundits predicting further weakness for the greenback, a little perspective is in order.

First of all, where have all the pundits been for the last five years? It's not like the dollars fall from grace started yesterday. In fact the dollar's fall has been a result of global growth, not a faltering US economy. The fact is that even with the subprime mess, rising commodity prices and the war in Iraq, the US economy is growing just fine. Could all the doomsayers in the media have a political agenda? Remember, an election is approaching.