Citi today fired Mark Mahaney, its internet analyst, and was fined by Massachusetts securities regulators, for sending dumb emails to reporters. The Massachusetts consent order is here. Mahaney’s main misconduct1 is that on April 30 of this year a French reporter asked him about Google’s YouTube business:

  • Do you think that YouTube has been above your Total Net Revenue estimate 2011 ($876M)
  • Do you think that YouTube will be above your Total Net Revenue estimate 2012 ($1119m)
  • Do you think that they are largely profitable?

And Mahaney replied “Yes Yes Yes.” This was problematic because:

The information that [Mahaney] gave to the French Reporter had not been previously published. [He] had published a research report on Google, Inc. on March 21, 2012 and did not publish another research report until his interview with “All Things Digital” on June 21, 2012.

Two thought experiments. First, Mark Mahaney’s job was to drum up institutional business by producing actionable estimates and opinions about the stocks he covered. One way to do this is to publish research reports. Google, it is fair to say, is an important stock that he covered. He did not publish any research reports on Google for three months this year. What do you think he was doing during that time? Your choices are:

  • Mostly focusing on other things that were not the biggest company he covered.
  • Mostly emailing his thoughts to reporters for publication in French trade magazines.
  • Mostly giving his thoughts to Citi trading clients via phone calls and in-person meetings.

I hope that question kind of answers itself? Mahaney answered the reporter’s questions about YouTube revenues pretty much instantly2; Citi PR had been copied on the email and by the time they told him not to answer he already had. The guy was servicey. To a reporter writing for a French monthly magazine. It’s possible that when major hedge fund clients called him and asked “do you think YouTube will beat your revenue estimate from a month ago?” he said “sorry, can’t answer that, read my stale report, I’ll have more for you in two months.” Except it is not actually possible.

What do you conclude from this thought experiment? Was this disclosure material? I have no idea and don’t care; I have my own biases about research analyst estimates of revenues at divisions of widely followed public companies but those don’t concern you. If it wasn’t material, though, why fine Citi and fire Mahaney for it? If it was … why is the email disclosure to the press the issue?

Anyway, also: This is a thing that happened after those emails:

During his 2012 Mid-Year review, Senior Analyst received a performance rating concerning, among other things, his “Adherence to Dept. Guidelines,” of between “consistently sets new standards and is truly exemplary” and “consistently strong and at times exemplary.”

We talked earlier about Citi and the general equilibrium of puffery. Imagine that instead of a performance evaluation for compliance that includes options like “finds new things to comply with that we didn’t even know a person could comply with,” Citi’s review form had these four options:

  • Never breaks the law
  • Sometimes breaks the law
  • Often breaks the law
  • Always breaks the law

Then I guess Mahaney would also have scored somewhere between the best and second-best categories? Exactly like he did? Only instead of that obviously being worrying, the actual evaluation made him sound like he was doing great. That evaluation seems to be part of Massachusetts’s “failure to supervise” case against Citi; I guess if he had been evaluated as “needs improvement in the not-law-breaking category” they’d have a strong defense. The culture of puffery has caught up to Citi fast.

In the Matter of: Citigroup Global Markets Inc. [Mass. Securities Division]
Amateurish E-mail Mistakes Cost Citigroup Analyst/Assistant Pair Their Jobs [DI / Kevin Roose]
Mahaney’s Email: ‘This Could Get Me Into Trouble. Shoot’ [Deal Journal]

1. Also, before the Facebook IPO, Mahaney’s junior analyst extensively discussed his draft initiating-coverage report on Facebook with his college friends who were reporters at TechCrunch, in violation of law and NDA and common sense and really just everything. Using his Citi email account. This is important: when you send things to Dealbreaker that you’re not supposed to be sending to Dealbreaker, use Gmail. Or text! Or put on a trenchcoat and meet us in a dark alley. We worry about you guys, you know. Be safe.

2. Actually even faster; per the consent order the reporter asked the questions at 6:23pm on April 30 and Mahaney answered at 3:24pm. I suppose that’s time zones though it’s not made clear. Perhaps he just anticipates clients’ needs.

21 comments (hidden to protect delicate sensibilities)
Show all comments ↓

Comments (21)

  1. Posted by Guestest | October 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM

    No, he was fired for spending too much time on the Internet.
    – Citi HR

  2. Posted by Wheat | October 26, 2012 at 1:55 PM

    I've got two tickets to Iron Maiden baby Come with me Friday, don't say maybe I'm just a teenage dirtbag baby like you

  3. Posted by 2 cubes over | October 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM

    ugh, freshman year… again…

  4. Posted by Mark | October 26, 2012 at 3:15 PM

    I resigned fuckboy.

  5. Posted by Heirarchy Quant | October 26, 2012 at 3:23 PM

    Is that above or below Director?

  6. Posted by lucas | October 26, 2012 at 3:31 PM

    What law is he alleged to have broken?

  7. Posted by L. Tilton | October 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM

    under. always under.

  8. Posted by Guest | October 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM

    Mark wasn't fired. He resigned.

    – Vikram Pandit

  9. Posted by Guest | October 26, 2012 at 6:53 PM

    In all seriousness, this is a sad outcome.

  10. Posted by Guest | October 26, 2012 at 7:15 PM

    That might be the least material email I've ever read.

  11. Posted by G. Costanza | October 26, 2012 at 8:27 PM

    Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?

  12. Posted by don | October 26, 2012 at 9:06 PM

    Whole story is strange….I actively trade GOOG and Youtube's numbers is so immaterial to the earnings of GOOG as a whole and not a market mover.

  13. Posted by Guest | October 26, 2012 at 10:10 PM

    This is bull shit. Respected the fuck out of him, as did just about everyone else in the space. smh

  14. Posted by WTF__k | October 27, 2012 at 12:14 AM

    Reading the consent order, it seems like he was fired for violating an internal Citi procedure, a vestige of SSB's past alleged misdeeds, and a stupid one. That, plus he failed to police his junior analyst's personal facebook page, or something.

    Dude got screwed.

  15. Posted by Toffe | October 27, 2012 at 7:13 AM

    Up to the point, when suddenly does become the number that do move the stock. Since when do dotcoms move according to _earnings_…?

  16. Posted by Toffe | October 27, 2012 at 7:15 AM

    Thats a lengthy way of saying you can't be half pregnant. Just because everyone else is half pregnant, doesn't preclude him of being a bitch.

  17. Posted by shameful | October 27, 2012 at 11:06 AM

    taking one for the team is the NKI

  18. Posted by a2m n swallow | October 28, 2012 at 3:31 AM

    he did excellent work with meeker in the late 90's, just excellent i tell you

  19. Posted by Bitchtern | October 29, 2012 at 1:25 PM

    I feel better already with this guy off the street.

  20. Posted by Dick | October 29, 2012 at 3:57 PM

    How does Matt's performance eval read in the charts/graphs department? I'm guessing "consistently sets new standards and often exemplary."

    Nice work.

  21. Posted by movers los angeles | June 19, 2013 at 7:45 AM

    "Sometimes breaks the law" is appreciable. There are such peoples who breaks law without knowing it. But, the people who always breaks the law should be punished hard.