????上周五，花旗集團（Citigroup）宣布，董事長理查德?帕森斯即將卸任。消息一出，媒體普遍對帕森斯的任內表現報以贊譽之詞。《紐約時報》（New York Times）的標題是《花旗集團企穩，帕森斯決定退休》（With Citigroup Stabilized, Parsons Decides to Retire.）。《華爾街日報》（The Wall Street Journal）稱，帕森斯已鞏固了首席執行官潘偉迪在公司的地位，強化了花旗在帕森斯領導下總體表現良好的印象。帕森斯自稱：“既然今日花旗已有這樣好的狀態，我認為我離開的時候到了。”但帕森斯留給花旗的東西遠不止這么簡單。下文將從四方面評判帕森斯任內的功與過：

????? 股價：如果按“10股并1股”的合股方案對花旗股本進行調整（合股本身在公關上可能是不錯的一步棋，但花旗股價比一個巨無霸漢堡包還要便宜，對吸引人才和客戶都不是件好事），自從帕森斯于2009年2月23日出任花旗董事長以來，花旗的股價已漲了近57%。唯一的問題是與此同時，標準普爾指數（Standard & Poors index）的漲幅更大——差不多同期漲了近80%。而且，過去12個月，花旗股價跌了約25%。結論：帕森斯完敗。

????? 盈利：去年，花旗集團實現凈利潤超過110億美元。但其中有近20億美元來自所謂的信貸價值調整，只是賬面利潤。第四季度，它減少了壞賬撥備22.5億美元（大約是實際壞賬減少額的兩倍），也虛增了利潤。而且，臨近年底，盈利看來呈現放緩之勢。不過，想想在帕森斯接掌前的一年，花旗集團虧損277億美元，因此，這方面還是要向帕森斯豎起大拇指。

????? 政府救助：花旗沒有像高盛（Goldman Sachs）那樣喊出“我們不需要救助”的口號。2008年底、2009年時，如果沒有山姆大叔出手相助，花旗幾乎肯定會關門大吉。2011年底，花旗還清了450億美元政府貸款的最后一筆款項。帕森斯推動花旗通過資產出售，還清了政府救助資金，并商定了退出政府救助機制的條款，在這方面絕對值得稱頌。因此，花旗能重新站起來，帕森斯功不可沒。有人說，花旗和其他大銀行由于被視為“大到不能倒”，從標準普爾（Standard & Poors）等評級公司得到的評級好于實際情況。而且，花旗必須稀釋股本，以便政府盡快套現。不過，還是要為帕森斯豎起大拇指。

????? 企業文化：或許花旗最大的問題是它全然無視風險，或者說，在一定程度上甚至無視法律。還記得前花旗集團首席執行官查克?普林斯當年的驚人之語嗎？當時，他在談及市場普遍回避的杠桿借貸業務時，拋出了一番著名的言論，聲稱：“我們仍在跳舞。”因此，要轉變“盈利第一、審慎第二”的文化，可能是帕森斯最大的挑戰。在這方面，顯然，帕森斯的繼任者邁克爾?奧尼爾還有太多工作要做。幾周前，花旗集團剛剛又支付了1.58億美元，就欺詐政府擔保大量高風險貸款一案達成和解。更糟糕的是，直到2011年7月，花旗的貸款官們還在這么干。貸款審查松懈所蘊藏的風險幾年前就應該已經灌輸到每個花旗員工的頭腦里了。發生這種事真是不應該。因此，在改變企業文化方面，帕森斯不僅乏善可陳，可能還要挨批。

????On Friday, Citigroup (C) said that its chairman Richard Parsons is stepping down. The departure has mostly been greeted with a job well done response. The New York Times headline was "With Citigroup Stabilized, Parsons Decides to Retire." The Wall Street Journal said Parsons had strengthened CEO Vikram Pandit's position at the firm, reinforcing the opinion that things had generally gone well under Parsons watch. Parsons himself said, "Given the strong position that Citi is in today, I have concluded that the time has come for me to take my leave." But Parsons' legacy at the bank is more complicated than that. Below are some ways to parse Parsons' tenure:

????? Stock price: Adjusted for a 10-for-1 split, which in itself was probably a good PR move - having Citigroup's stock trade for less than a Big Mac was not great for employees or customer acquisition - Citigroup's stock has risen nearly 57% since Parsons took over as chairman on February 23, 2009. The only problem is the Standard & Poors index in the same time was up even more - nearly 80% in roughly the same time. And over the past 12 months the stock is down roughly 25%. Verdict: Thumbs down Parson.

????? Earnings: Last year, Citigroup made over $11 billion. But those earnings included nearly $2 billion the bank made on so-called credit value adjustments, which are only profits on paper. And in the fourth quarter it got a boost by putting away $2.25 billion less for loan losses - about double the drop in actual loan loses. What's more, earnings appeared to be slowing toward the end of the year. Nevertheless, the year before Parsons took over Citi lost $27.7 billion. So a big thumbs up for Parsons on that one.

????? Government Dole: There's no Goldman Sachs' "We didn't need the bailout" argument for Citigroup. The bank was most definitely going down without Uncle Sam's support in late 2008 and 2009. The bank paid back the last of the $45 billion it took from the government in late 2011, and Parsons definitely deserves some of the credit for helping the firm push through asset sales that got it off the government's dole, as well as negotiating the terms of its exit from government assistance. So credit Parsons with getting the bank back on its own two feet, mostly. Some say that Citi and other large banks get a better rating than they should from Standard & Poors and others because they are deemed Too Big To Fail. What's more, Citi had to dilute its shares in order to cash out the government as fast as it did. Still, another thumbs up for Parsons.

????? Culture: Perhaps the biggest problem at Citi was its total lack of regard for risk or, at some level, the law. Remember Chuck Prince's famous dancing quote. So turning around the culture of profits first prudence second was perhaps Parsons greatest challenge. And apparently, on that front Parsons' successor Michael O'Neil still has a lot of work to do. A few weeks ago, Citigroup had to pay $158 million to settle a suit that it was pushing faulty loans onto a government insurance program. Worse, Citi's loan officers were doing it as recently as July 2011. The dangers of lax lending should have been drilled into the heads of every employee of Citigroup years ago. Pathetic. So as a culture changer, Parsons not only gets a thumbs down, but a finger wag as well.