????花旗集團（Citi）首席執行官潘偉迪正式摘下了花旗一美元先生的帽子。如今，他該不該拿1,500萬美元才是問題所在。

????3月8日，花旗集團宣布，2011年向這位首席執行官支付了近1,490萬美元的現金和期權。而2010年，潘偉迪還拿著一美元的年薪。退回到2009年，當時他宣稱將只領取1美元的年薪，直到花旗恢復盈利。事實上，潘偉迪拿1美元年薪的時間已超出了他應信守的時間。花旗從2010年就已經開始賺錢了。因此，他今年多拿一些，實際上也無可厚非。

????而且花旗集團2011年的表現確實相當出色。全年實現利潤110億美元，較上一年增長了4%。不過，這家銀行還有很多地方需要改進。而且，2011年花旗也同意接受幾十億美元的罰款，就其按揭業務違反大量條例達成和解，包括數量不明的問題止贖案，其中很多都發生在潘偉迪任職期間。

????正如我說過的，決定一名首席執行官到底該掙多少錢并不是一件容易的事。這也正是他們能夠拿到天價薪酬的原因。但潘偉迪的薪酬看起來仍然過于豐厚了。回到2006年，花旗實現利潤215億美元，或者說是2011年利潤的近兩倍。按此標準，潘偉迪2011年的薪酬應為2006年時任首席執行官查克?普林斯2,500萬美元的一半，或者應該比他自己去年的實際薪資少250萬美元。但大多數研究顯示，首席執行官的薪酬應當根據投資者眼中的公司價值或市值，而不是實際凈利潤。從2006年底至今，花旗集團的市值已跌去1,800億美元，跌幅高達64%。以這個標準計算，潘偉迪應該掙900萬美元左右，而不是1,500萬美元。而且，所有這些計算的基礎是假定普林斯的薪酬不存在泡沫，不過考慮到花旗集團當年不得不靠政府救助才能渡過難關，普林斯當初的薪酬顯然偏高。

????更離奇的是花旗集團其他高管2011年也獲得了漲薪的待遇。首席財務官約翰?戈斯帕奇的薪酬大增51%，達到了720萬美元。花旗總裁約翰?哈文斯拿走了1,300萬美元，較上一年增加了36%。不包括潘偉迪在內的其他4名高管薪水合計增長34%達到了4,300萬美元。而2011年，華爾街其他人的獎金都在縮水，降幅在14%至25%之間不等。花旗集團自己編制并提交的文件卻顯示他們的薪酬僅上漲了5%。

????更有甚者，潘偉迪的1美元年薪在某種程度上來說其實一直都只是個假象。2007年，花旗聘用潘偉迪，同時花了8億美元收購他的對沖基金。但最后發現那個對沖基金其實一文不值。一年后花旗就把它關閉了。雖然如此，潘偉迪還是從這樁交易中賺進了1.65億美元。

????難道薪酬“沙皇”即將卷土重來？

????譯者：早稻米

????Vikram Pandit is officially no longer Citi's $1 man. Whether he should be a $15 million one is the question.

????Yesterday, the bank disclosed that it paid its CEO nearly $14.9 million in cash and options in 2011. That was up from a dollar the year before. Back in 2009, Pandit said he would take a salary of $1 until Citigroup returned to profitability. In fact, Pandit stuck with the meager check longer than he had to. Citi made money in 2010. So you can't really fault the guy for taking more this year.

????And Citigroup did have a pretty good 2011. It earned $11 billion, up 4% from the year before. Still, the bank has a lot to fix. And 2011 was a year in which Citigroup agreed to billions of dollars in fines to settle claims that it broke numerous rules in its mortgage operations, including an untold number of questionable foreclosures, many of which happened on Pandit's watch.

????As I have said before, determining what a CEO should make isn't easy. That's how they can get away with such high pay. But Pandit's pay still looks rich. Back in 2006, Citi made $21.5 billion, or nearly double what the company made last year. By that measure, Pandit's pay should be half of the $25 million then-CEO Chuck Prince made in 2006, or $2.5 million less than what he was actually paid. But most studies show that CEOs are paid based on what investors think their company is worth, or market capitalization, not actual earnings. Since the end of 2006, Citigroup's market cap has plunged $180 billion or 64%. By that measure, Pandit should be making roughly $9 million, not $15 million. And all that is based on that fact that the Prince wasn't grossly overpaid, which, given that Citigroup had to be bailed out by the government, he clearly was.

????Even more curious is the 2011 pay hikes for the rest of Citi's executive team. CFO John Gerspach's pay jumped 51% to $7.2 million. John Havens, Citigroup's president, took home nearly $13 million, up 36% from the year before. All told, the pay of Citigroup's top four executives excluding Pandit rose 34% to $43 billion. All this comes in a year in which the rest of Wall Street saw their bonuses cut anywhere from 14% to 25% depending on who you believe. And Citigroup's own ran- and-file only saw a 5% jump in their pay.

????What's more, Pandit's $1 pay at some level was always an illusion. When Citigroup hired Pandit in 2007 it bought out his hedge fund as well for $800 million. The hedge fund, though, turned out to be nearly worthless. And Citigroup closed it a year later. Nonetheless, Pandit pocketed $165 million on the deal.

????Time to bring back the pay czar?