By Oh Young-jin
Last week, Citibank Korea, the subsidiary of Citigroup, was the target of more negative reports than it would normally receive in a year, if an Internet search is any indication.
It is odd because the chief of the leading U.S. banking group, Vikram Pandit, visited Korea as the first destination on his Asian tour for its 200th anniversary.
China was his second stop, which followed with others all over the globe. The reception held in Pandit’s honor drew Korea’s who’s who.
In reference to the full house reception, it was rumored that some members of his entourage half-jokingly said that Citibank Korea had set the bar too high.
Pandit himself also contributed to the celebratory aura by telling a news conference that he sees growth in the Asian market and Korea won’t be affected by its global rationalization.
Then, why did Citibank Korea and its veteran CEO Ha Yung-ku take flak from the media?
It should be treated as a whodunit that requires a little guesswork to solve it.
First, it is worth noting that only one newspaper had arranged an interview with Pandit.
On Monday morning on the day of Pandit’s arrival, however, the first negative report appeared on a rival newspaper that apparently felt slighted for not being invited.
In response, invitations were sent to two more general newspapers and two business papers together with a news agency. At the last minute another general newspaper was added. A total of the seven invited newspapers extensively covered their meeting with Pandit.
The reports were either neutral or slightly positive in tone by focusing on Citigroup’s growth plan for Korea and the extension of a digital service.
Then, a string of negative articles were filed and one thing in common among them was that they all were not invited to the Pandit news conference.
One article even claimed that Citibank Korea is shunned by job-seeking college graduates citing a recent incident, striking a stark contrast with consistent reports of its being perennially included among the most popular employers.
It would be unfair to say that these attacks were grudge-motivated but the circumstances are such that this possibility is only made distinct.
If only somebody in Citigroup had planned a media event by fully considering the territorial characteristics of journalism in Korea, Citibank Korea could surely have avoided much of the media flak.
Adding flesh and bones to the likelihood that these articles were rooted from feelings of being slighted were the criticisms in those anti-Citi?that underscored very similar points, as if they had copied each other.
One of them is Ha’s alleged failure to prevent Citigroup from taking big dividends.
In Korea, foreign firms are often lumped together and brushed in the same stroke.
Lone Star, the Texas-based private equity fund, faced a great deal of criticism for trying to leave Korea with a hefty profit from the sale of its controlling stake in the Korea Exchange Bank as soon as possible.
It just has, after selling it to Hana Financial.
Citigroup, however, is a bank with 200 years of history that operates over the long haul and should be treated as part of our banking industry. It is different from a fast-buck -seeking Lone Star.
For instance, it made a significant capital increase with the support from its headquarters in 2008, a year that turned out to be the start of financial turmoil that is still being felt around the world.
As a matter of fact, it is often said that the move did help calm down the sweeping foreign exchange turbulance.
In other words, Citibank Korea and its host country are in mutually-beneficial relations.
Thus, if Citibank Korea claims the negative reports are unfair, it would not be entirely without merits. It has not done so just yet.