NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Some of the nation's biggest financial services firms have turned to new managers to get past scandals in recent months -- but the new blood hasn't done much for the company's stocks, at least not yet.

Turnover is a natural process in Corporate America but there's little doubt that the recent regulatory scandals have also sparked a cultural shift among financial services firms, industry experts said.

"The boards are holding CEOs accountable for financial responsibility as well as for the image and leadership of the organization," said Kenneth Rich, head of the financial services industry practice at A.T. Kearney, a New York-based executive search firm. "That has resulted in some changes at the top."

And while Wall Street commends -- and expects -- financial services firms to keep on the right side of regulators, there's concern that these firms may become so cautious that it jeopardizes their growth. That could push away investors that aren't willing sacrifice higher profits for a tamer, safer company, analysts said.

Financial services firms such as Citigroup (Research), Bank of America (Research), and Marsh & McLennan (Research), for instance, all bid adieu to top senior executives this summer.

And insurance titan American International Group (Research) replaced its long-term chief executive Maurice "Hank" Greenberg and CFO earlier this year as the insurer got cited for controversial deals that were used to inflate the company's earnings.

The hope is that new managers will fall in line with the vision of chief executives looking to revamp their business models in an increasingly rigid regulatory environment.

"In today's organization, there's an emphasis on the entire executive team working together to deal with regulatory scrutiny and corporate governance," said Madhavi Mantha, senior analyst at Celent LLC, an independent research and consulting firm. "We are in a much more cautious environment."

As a result, shareholders are upping the pressure on chief executives, demanding that they show how they're going to boost returns to shareholders while balancing growth with increased corporate governance.

At Citigroup, CEO Charles Prince, in particular, has worked hard to revamp former CEO Sanford Weill's growth-at-all-costs management style at the world's largest financial services company, analysts said.

By selling off non-core businesses and instituting a rigid ethics model, Prince hoped to undo some of the damage to Citigroup's reputation following the scandals at Enron and WorldCom. New York-based Citigroup agreed to pay over $4 billion to settle shareholder lawsuits related to the those companies.

There were also problems with regulators in Japan who shut Citi's private banking unit as evidence emerged of securities violations. Prince publicly bowed in apology for Citigroup's mistakes in Japan.

But some of Prince's initiatives were likely at odds with Weill's former vision for the company, said Craig Woker, associate director of stock research at Morningstar Inc.

"Instilling bureaucracy in a fast-paced Wall Street environment means you're going to lose some business to the competition," Woker said. "That won't appeal to executives who want to focus on growth."

It might not appeal to investors, either. Citigroup's stock has hovered in the mid $40-range in the last year. Woker said the company would be fairly valued at $54 a share but investors are cautious, opting for a more wait-and-see approach regard Citigroup's growth prospects.

"Investors want companies to take risk from an operational risk standpoint to benefit shareholders with better profits," he said. "Regulatory oversight is a good thing but a company shouldn't become such a bureaucracy that it's no longer being innovative."

Troubled insurance Marsh & McLennan, likewise, has some work to do to convince investors that its new business model and executives will keep the company strong.

In the wake of an investigation into its Putnam mutual funds unit and Marsh's $850 million settlement with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer after a scandal over rigged bids for insurance, the company, the nation's largest insurance broker, has undergone a near-total renovation, including a new CEO.

It unveiled a new business model in Marsh that excludes the revenue-generating contingent commissions -- fees that Spitzer said were misused by brokers and resulted in Marsh steering business to favored companies.

And after that work was done, the company's financial chief Sandra Wijnberg resigned in August. Wijnberg has been credited in Wall Street with helping to move the company forward through the investigation until its settlement with regulators.

"The company is on the road to recovery and they've done a lot to try to remove any hints of conflict of interest," said Peter Streit, senior insurance analyst at Williams Capital Group. "But now that they've done away with contingent commissions, it remains to be seen if they will able to make close to the same level of profits under the new business model."

With Wijnberg gone in 2006, the company will be one step closer to a total makeover. Streit said 2005 has been a transition year and it should be more evident if the company is on the right track in 2006 and 2007.

But investors are reluctant to jump on board. Streit has a 12- to 18-month price target of $40 but the stock recently traded at about $29.50 -- down 37 percent from its 52-week high -- and he said investors are likely to remain cautious until they see tangible results.

One financial services company that does stand to benefit from its change in executives is Bank of America. The company's finance chief Marc Oken stepped down in August to be replaced by Alvaro de Molina, the former head of its investment banking unit.

Oken had been criticized by shareholders and Wall Street observers for the company's sluggish stock price and for its acquisition of MBNA (see correction) -- a $35 billion deal that some investors believe was overpriced.

While analysts said its still early to tell what positive changes de Molina may bring to the company, they are optimistic that its a change for the better. The stock, however, continues to struggle -- trading near its 52-week low of about $42.

Morningstar's Woker said the company's stock price reflects the view on Wall Street that large banks – such as Bank of America and Citigroup – are so complex and opaque that it's hard to price in risk.

Under Oken, Bank of America was criticized for relying on more complex and volatile trading income – a move that set it apart from its retail banking peers, such as Wachovia, that trade at higher premiums. Woker said the larger banks trade at 10-times earnings while smaller players trade closer to 15-times earnings.

But Woker added that the shift in management at Bank of America may help the company break free of that stigma and estimated that the company will be more fairly valued at $49.

---------------------------------------

To check out CNN/Money's corporate corruption special, click here.

Fastest growing companies, click here.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the name of Bank of America's acquisition, it was MBNA not Fleet Boston Financial Corp. CNN/Money regrets the error.