????花旗集團（Citigroup）CEO邁克爾·考伯特沒能抓住機會，給華爾街留下良好的第一印象。不過，他給人的第二印象似乎為他贏得了不少支持者。

????十月中旬，花旗集團似乎已經亂成一團。在這種形勢下，考伯特接替潘偉迪。公司倉促召開了分析師會議，會上，考伯特在壓力之下介紹了他計劃對銀行采取哪些不同的措施。是拆分，還是徹底放棄花旗集團剩余的不良資產？看起來，考伯特自己也是毫無頭緒。

????大約兩個月后，考伯特給出了答案——裁員11,000人。上周三消息傳來，花旗集團股票上漲了7%。

????很明顯，一直拒絕裁員的潘偉迪已經不適應這個時代。如今，投資者和華爾街高管最為關注的標準是所謂的“效益比”，及銀行開支收益比，而且比率越低越好。突然之間，華爾街希望所有銀行都成為沃爾瑪（Wal-Mart）。即便強勢如高盛（Goldman Sachs），最近也告訴投資者，其目標是成為低成本供應商。

????經過裁員，花旗集團的效益比將達到63%，好于摩根大通（JPMorgan Chase）和美國銀行（Bank of America）兩家競爭對手。摩根大通與美國銀行的效益比率分別為65%和86%。然而，并非所有效益比率都生來平等。如果你能證明自己可以產生更高的收益，那么投資者就可以容忍更高的成本。這是所有大銀行都面臨的問題，但花旗集團的問題似乎比其競爭對手更為嚴重。

????美國利率處于歷史低位，而且美聯儲（Federal Reserve）近期也沒有加息的可能，使得銀行貸款收益不斷縮水。然而，銀行通過投資銀行或資產管理等業務獲得的手續費收入卻不受利息壓力的影響。

????不幸的是，花旗集團的投資銀行業務一直在苦苦掙扎，通過手續費產生的收入僅占其總收入的約40%，而美國銀行和摩根大通則分別為53%和55%。而且，花旗投資銀行業務的手續費收入可能進一步縮水。這次花旗裁員的對象約四分之一便是針對投資銀行部門。潘偉迪曾經表示要精簡銀行，這個策略似乎已經成為擺脫華爾街高風險業務的不二法門。

????但如果考伯特也想放棄投資銀行業務，必須更大幅度地削減成本。花旗銀行競爭對手中以貸款為核心業務的富國銀行（Wells Fargo）與美國合眾銀行（U.S. Bancorp）的效益比非常低，分別為54%和48%。

????Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat missed his chance to make a good first impression. His second impression seems to be winning more fans.

????Corbat took over from Vikram Pandit in mid-October in what appeared to be a chaotic mess. There was a hastily called meeting with analysts in which Corbat was pushed to say what he planned to do differently with the bank. Break it up? Finally dump the rest of Citi's toxic assets? Corbat didn't seem to have a clue.

????Nearly two months later, Corbat has an answer -?can 11,000 people. Citi's shares (C) rose on the news Wednesday, up 7%.

????It was clear that Pandit, who resisted mass layoffs, no longer fit the times. The metric that investors and Wall Street execs seem most focused on these days is something called the efficiency ratio. It compares a bank's expenses to its revenue. The lower the number the better. All of a sudden, Wall Street wants to be Wal-Mart. Even the mighty Goldman Sachs (GS) recently told investors its goal is to be the low-cost provider.

????After the layoffs, Citi will have an efficiency ratio of 63%. That's better than its rivals JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Bank of America (BAC), which have ratios of 65% and 86%, respectively. But not all efficiency ratios are created equal. Investors will tolerate higher costs if you can show them that you will be able to produce higher revenue. That's a problem for all the big banks, but more so for Citi than its direct rivals.

????Historically low-interest rates, which the Federal Reserve isn't likely to raise anytime soon, are squeezing loan revenue. Income the banks generate from fees, however, like investment banking or asset management, won't be under the same pressure.

????Unfortunately, Citi, which has struggled in investment banking, only generates about 40% of its revenue from fees, compared to 53% and 55% at Bank of America and JPMorgan, respectively. And that is likely to shrink further at Citi. About a quarter of the bank's cuts will come from its investment bank. Pandit had talked about simplifying the bank, which seemed code for getting out of Wall Street's riskier businesses.

????But if Corbat wants to do that he will have to cut costs much more dramatically than he has. His lending-centric rivals Wells Fargo (WFC) and U.S. Bancorp (USB) have dramatically lower efficiency ratios, of 54 and 48, respectively.