Calls to remove Jane Fraser is growing by the day, is it because she is a woman? This would not have happened if she was part of the boys club!
24 replies (most recent on top)
It's because she is bad she started as empathetic now her plan is reorg and keep doing it the plan is there is no plan and the COO office absolutely asked to lie about the data progress
In some townhall she mentioned to hire prompt engineer that itself state her knowledge.
Unless she can break the bureaucracy it's impossible to make things move , they will sack many people and again hire a lot but the core issue is bureaucracy which can not be solved unless they use real AI SOLUTIONS TO FIND THE MOLE.
Take a downvote from me OP. Loads of replies already covered reasons why ANY CEO would be asked to resign, so my downvote is not because I disagree. I do disagree, but that's not what the downvote is for. My downvote is because you asked a loaded question with zero substance behind it.
For instance, you could have added some accomplishments she has. Maybe list a few areas where revenue was up because of her leadership. OR, you could have pointed out a male CEO with a below average performance where nobody was calling for his resignation.
Instead, OP just assumed that anyone that's frustrated with the stock price and Citi's lack of real growth must be more frustrated that Citi's CEO is a woman.
Jane has a proven record of failure in a very short period of time she’s been CEO. I’m not surprised though as her mentor was Corbat. Move her out and someone else in.
You've had to look on this board a couple years back to see whether there are lots of posts saying Mike Corbat had to go. Because there should have been! All those fines and half a billion (yes billion) dollars to Revlon creditors by mistake.
Tossup which one was worse. I'll lay odds that Jane will retire next year and the next CEO will be more of the same, no matter what the gender or color.
She’s got her money, which is all she cared about, now its time for her to go.
And when is Citi going to get rid of “pot head” Directors in IBD?
I think Jane Fraser is only part of the problem. She either put a bunch of losers in place, or the people she put in place, and she is guilty of not managing them closely.
Breaking the glass ceiling and being the first female CEO for Citi is not a free pass for failure. She’s had years to make stock price go up but all its done is drop.
Its almost as if the stock market doesn’t care if Jane is a woman or not.
Its almost as if the stock market bases the value of the stock based off of demand and performance.
Maybe no one told them that Citi needs to be given a free pass on that measurement because Jane is a female.
Citi has 210K employees. Chase has 190K or there abouts.
What concerns me the most is that in Jane’s head its possible she may think that if she can get the headcount down to the same number as Chase’s, then everything is going to be ok. No need to come up with any plan or ideas or innovations…once we get the number of employees to match Chase, we are golden and then she waits….waits for the balance sheet to get better based off of nothing more than that alone. This is what worries me.
Jane is not the first or last incompetent CEO. She oversold her capabilities to the BOD, much like Carly Fiorina did. Eventually, the BOD will fire Jane, because she simply can’t deliver.
I don’t think its too much to ask of a CEO but I think its too much to ask of Jane. It seems that everyone is finding her to be ill equipped to the task.
Hire someone else. Hire another female. Hire anyone who can lead us. Just anyone, anyone at all. I don’t care if you hire them straight out of college, or from another bank or from Walmart customer service, just get us someone who can lead us effectively and not into ruin or straight into the path of the pending layoff cyclone, yet once again.
To @wez+1pEu9OZP :
How would I bring down the cost, oh an easy first step would be….
Step 1: Only hire what is needed. Don’t create unneeded roles “Co” this and that “chief” this and that just so that you can hire someone to tic a political box. Hiring extra people just so that you can say you have “x” amount of an “x” type of people only so you can lay people off later because you now have too many, is not the way to go.
Step 2: If costs are so bad, then maybe don’t give yourself a HUGE boost in pay.
I’m sure the board allowed it hoping to see a return on that investment, but alas, not so much it seems. I don’t know what it takes to run a multi trillion dollar bank the but then again, I’m not getting paid tens of millions like she is to know either.
Step 3: Innovate, that is what you are paid to do. As has been said before….. In order to beat the competition you need to:
a.) provide a service or product that is UNIQUE that your competition does not have
AND\
OR
b.) provide a service or product that is BETTER than your competition.
So when does this happen? Where’s the grand ideas? Other than you are DEI happy, what else do you have? Anything? Anything at all? Because that’s all we’ve heard.
I don’t see how these are unreasonable things for expectations of a CEO.
the stock price is down bc our costs/expenses are too high. read some financial analysis on the stock. so how would you bring down costs if you were in jane’s role?
Poster ID Post ID: @hhv+1pEu9OZP is correct. To add to their post, so much for Jane Fraser's fancy MBA from Harvard and Bachelors Degree from Cambridge University. Truly Frightening because she rules as if she learned NOTHING in MBA school. What Poster ID Post ID: @hhv+1pEu9OZP posted below is taught in the top 50 MBA schools if not ALL MBA schools. Harvard B-School should be ashamed and embarassed with Jane Fraser as an alumna. Citi and Wells Fargo are the 2 dog "banks" on Wall Street behing JPMorganChase, Bank of America etc.. You know what they say in equity research parlance, 2 dogs usually end up bumping uglies. This means they could end up together and get merged into one Big Ugly Dog. Sad, pathetic and frightening. At Citi, everyday is Halloween.
The past 1 year:
JPM stock up 14%
C stock down -30% (that’s a negative)
Overall the C stock is down -38% since Jane took over. You can pull this information up yourself.
As one posted said: “In order to beat the competition you need to:
a.) provide a service or product that is UNIQUE that your competition does not have
AND\
OR
b.) provide a service or product that is BETTER than your competition.
If you don’t do at least one of these things then don’t expect the doors to burst open with people willing to give you their money.” - -which is true post.
Instead of focusing on “a” or “b” above all she’s seem to do is focus on molding the company to fit her vision of diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI). I’ve seen footage of 4 public interviews with Jane, when asked a question she always maneuvered the conversation back to DEI as if she had no other plan, just that and that alone.
I’m sure she’s done the best she could but she just doesn’t have anything else. No plan, no vision. She’s learned all she could but her mentor was Corbat and here we are.
You need to have something in the works to focus on “a” and\or “b” above. In comparison to other banks our balance sheet is sad.
We need someone from OUTSIDE Citi to come in and take charge. Make it another female if you want. I don’t really care so long as they can truly lead and innovate and its clear that Jane cannot.
6 hours ago by Anonymous
| 25 reactions (+24/-1)
Post ID: @hhv+1pEu9OZP
It was all BS. For the last 2 years Jane talked about empathy, inclusiveness, ‘we are in this together’ teamwork, transformation, and work life balance. These were all lies. She runs the company like a dictator. All her circle execs are ‘yes’ men/women. What kind of backwards leadership is that. It is no surprise Citi has done so poorly. They can downsize 50% of the workers and stock price will remain down because the problem is lack of leadership vision not the employees.
Running Citi is a challenge, no matter who you are. Jane was successful in running the Private Bank and CitiMortage. A month after becoming CEO the Consent Orders dropped. Citi is too big and inefficient, and in the regulators' crosshairs. Shedding business and layoffs are inevitable.
This seems like a Jane Fraser encouraged planted post but anyway….
“What have you got Jane to lead us into the light”
“I’m the first Citi female CEO”
“Yeah, we know that, so what are your plans to bring in revenue”
“We’ve increased hiring, necessary or not to have a more diverse, inclusive environment”
“Ok, well how does that bring in the money?”
“We just promoted more minorities into management”
“We are concerned about the company balance sheet”
“I just gave myself a raise to match what other male CEO make”
“What plans are being done to raise the stock price?”
“I’m having my people scrub internal documents to appease the safe space people”
I’m betting the board sees all this and they are very concerned that there is no true vision or plan.
The past 1 year:
JPM stock up 14%
C stock down -30% (that’s a negative)
Overall the C stock is down -38% since Jane took over. You can pull this information up yourself.
As one posted said: “In order to beat the competition you need to:
a.) provide a service or product that is UNIQUE that your competition does not have
AND\
OR
b.) provide a service or product that is BETTER than your competition.
If you don’t do at least one of these things then don’t expect the doors to burst open with people willing to give you their money.” - -which is true post.
Instead of focusing on “a” or “b” above all she’s seem to do is focus on molding the company to fit her vision of diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI). I’ve seen footage of 4 public interviews with Jane, when asked a question she always maneuvered the conversation back to DEI as if she had no other plan, just that and that alone.
I’m sure she’s done the best she could but she just doesn’t have anything else. No plan, no vision. She’s learned all she could but her mentor was Corbat and here we are.
You need to have something in the works to focus on “a” and\or “b” above. In comparison to other banks our balance sheet is sad.
We need someone from OUTSIDE Citi to come in and take charge. Make it another female if you want. I don’t really care so long as they can truly lead and innovate and its clear that Jane cannot.
It's got nothing to do with her gender. It's about her incompetence, lack of focus and her being out of touch with reality. Same with other MDs in her orbit. As someone else posted, the next CEO must actually lead, have competency, place revenue and sell Citi's products and services as priorities. Employees do Not care if the new CEO is bi, tri, male, female, whatever ethnicity, whatever religion, etc..
Did JF post this?
She has to go
Fraser is disconnected from Citi. A true leader would have been meeting with employees inspiring them to embrace her vision. Citi has no leader. The board knows that the reorg will fail under Jane. If I was on the board I would vote to find someone more competent.
There are too may MDs and SVPs, doing close to nothing, I dont think Jane is the problem.
Absolutely not name one thing she has done to help citi since she has been CEO in 2021