Jim Cramer Breaks Down Fallen CEOs Blunders

In an essay published in New York Magazine, Jim Cramer, founder of TheStreet.com and host of Mad Money, wrote about the ineptitude of two fallen CEOs: Merrill Lynch's former head guy, Stan O'Neal, and Citigroup's ex-boss, Charles Prince III.

Cramer practically blasted the two CEOs, and he did not mind throwing in the banks that used to employ them either.

Cramer's piece focused on several issues concerning the bank and its CEOs ineptitude. One of the first being that Merrill Lynch was far too kind in calling the departure of Stan O'Neal a retirement and for paying him $160 million and calling it a contractual obligation. He says, "There was no mention that perhaps, if you lose $8 billion, you can be fired for cause and be denied the contracted pay package. If $8 billion in losses isn't cause, what is?"

Personally, I find Cramer to be completely correct in his assessment of this situation. Afterall, when the Average Joe is fired, he does not get $160 million. In fact, he often does not get anything, and he usually is not cause for a company losing $8 billion. The fact Merrill Lynch paid him all of that money resonates with me as a spineless move that was an effort to make it look as if they treat their CEOs with respect and a mother's touch. It also makes it look as if you can come into Merrill Lynch, do anything you want, are fired, and get paid $160 million on top of your already ridiculous salary.

Cramer goes on to describe Prince's departure from Citigroup as "ridiculously gracious" as well, despite the fact that Prince was might be responsible for as much as $11 billion in losses as well. He makes mention of the fact that Prince's resignation came a day before Citigroup was expected to determine the fate of the misguiding CEO and calls it a "Pure coincidence."

Citigroup's fall out with its CEO may have even been more cowardly than that of Merrill Lynch's. I wonder if the guy who is fired from the grocery store for coming up $6 short with his cash register receipts once or twice gets the courtesy of his boss saying that he chose to leave and that was not the decision of the grocery store.

Thankfully, for those of us not as knowledgeable of the inner dealings of Wall Street, Cramer lets us know just how much of the blame is actually their fault. "If you are wondering whether these CEOs were brought down by the mistakes of their underlings or wholly unavoidable situations not of their own making, don't even go there. These men charted and executed the exact paths that generated such colossal losses for their firms, embracing bonds backed up by residential mortgages as though they were gold."

He goes on to explain how Stan O'Neal's fall can be attributed to his firing of great executives who disagreed with him, buying First Franklin (what Cramer deems "one of the worst subprime-mortgage lenders"), and his decision to try an impromptu merger with Wachovia without informing the board of directors.

It is amazing what these corporate mongers can get away with. The Average Joe does not gets fired for far less and does very little damage to a company not matter what he or she does, and the end result is never high pay and a lucrative retirement package. Imagine if the manager of a McDonald's approached the manager of a Burger King and decided to merge the Whopper and the Big Mac without consulting their respective companies? While the change would only happen at their respective locations, I guarantee Mickey-D's and BK would have them exiled if they did not have their heads removed instead.

Cramer also makes note of the fact O'Neal posted 20 golf-scores during the months when Merrill Lynch was bleeding $8 billion worth of red ink on its profit-loss sheets. The Average Joe cannot afford to play gold in the New York area, but he has time to do it when he should be focused on his job more than he has ever been.

Charles Prince, formerly of Citigroup, was no better than Prince was. In fact, he was far worse. The "Clown Prince" (as he calls him) is described by Cramer as having been brought into fix Citigroup's legal issues, and Cramer gives him credit for doing so. But he also says that Prince "was in over his head" in trying to run an investment bank and that he should have been let go after he regulated all of Citigroup's legal concerns. Prince's acquisitions and buybacks were reckless purchases, and included the attainment of "underperforming hedge funds, and a second-rate brokerage in the only securities market worse than ours, Japan's, and he backed the riskiest strategy for the era: guaranteeing billions and billions of loans, once again backed up by residential mortgages."

I guess it was only a matter of time before Prince was fired for actions such as the ones Cramer denotes in his article. And it is clear that O'Neal was comparably incompetent. It is good that someone who is so amiable and capable of relating to people not working on Wall Street would take the time to explain the blunders of these overpaid executives and cut them down to size during the process.