Mike Mayo: Send Citigroup And Bank Of America To 'Minor Leagues' For Breakup: "We Don't Have Capitalism, We Have Entitlement"

This is a great interview.

Source - CNBC

Big banks that haven't been performing should be broken up before they become a threat to the entire financial system, banking analyst and author Mike Mayo told CNBC.

"Let's go bank by bank, company by company, CEO by CEO, chairman by chairman, let's just go down the list...and start cleaning house," he said.

Looking at specific institutions, Mayo pointed to Citigroup Chairman Dick Parsons and said, "I don't know how he still has a job."

"If you haven't performed for a number of years — like a decade — then get out of the major leagues and go back to the minor leagues, and you should be broken up. But I think the shareholders should lead the way," he said. "If you have a company like Citigroup — maybe one or two others out there — that haven't performed over more than a decade, then I say let's break them into more manageable pieces."

Parsons in particular drew Mayo's ire for leading the firm's compensation committee while the bank weathered storm after storm during the last decade. Despite the circumstances, top executives suffered no negative effects to their paychecks, Mayo pointed out.

"When I look at the current CEO compensation plan, I feel it is rigged," he said, citing "an abnormally low threshold to get the incentive pay."

"We've had butchered capitalism. This is not capitalism," he said. "Capitalism didn't fail. Not having capitalism is what caused the system to break down. Capitalism is having many eyes looking at the market acting on what they see, and being incented to act."

Comments

[chiller]

I'll bet this has some fat cats screaming "Hold the Mayo" on their turd sandwiches...

[Michael Mcmillan]

The banks and the bankers are major financing source for AIPAC. Investigate the influence of AIPAC in protecting the banks. You will see that the protection is imposed on the congress and the FED by AiPAC.

[can't make an omelette]

Riiight - IF you could get rid of various manifestations of corruption and opportunistic looting, Moore wouldn't have a case. This anchor is totally reaching. It also crosses my mind whether they are disingenuous, even in this interview. The author/guest prefers internal oversight to laws. I'd like to know what his vested interests might be for pushing in that direction. On the other hand, he mentions Glass-Steagall favorably, so if that is an example of a "good" regulation that he would favor, then fine.