Friday, January 30, 2009

The Banks and Their Bonuses

For a guy who has been so outspoken about the unfairly positive treatment the banks are receiving over the past year, I am really torn about this whole bonus thing. For those of you who don't know, millions of Americans, including prominently newly sworn-in president Barack Obama, were disgusted and outraged to learn on Thursday that Wall Street paid out $18.4 billion in cash bonuses to its New York City-based employees at the end of 2008 / beginning in 2009 for fiscal year 2008. Many of these banks are the very institutions that received between $10 and $50 billion of taxpayer funds from the TARP program to help stabilize their capital bases and keep them in business as we suffer through the most trying financial crisis since the Great Depression. News that these firms that needed billions and billions of dollars of our money to survive the over-risky positions they got themselves into are now paying out billions and billions of dollars in bonuses to their employees cannot be expected to be taken well.

That said, this isn't nearly as cut and dried as many, including the new president, seem to think it is. In the banks' defense, what they call "bonuses" are not really bonuses in the sense that most non-bank employees think of that word. Having come from that industry myself, I can say with total positivity that this isn't like some other jobs I have had, where you get paid whatever your salary is, and then in a good year maybe they kick you 5 or 10% on top as a year-end bonus. Maybe you get it, maybe you don't, but either way you make your salary and that's what your real pay is. At the banks, the compensation model is completely different. The base salaries at many of the banks, even for those investment bankers making $5 and $10 million a year, generally top out well under a million dollars. It is not uncommon for even the highest-paid bankers in the industry to receive a salary close to $250,000, and then receive their millions all in a bonus at the end of the year, making upwards of 80% or more of their total annual compensation in that year-end bonus.

Now, you may not feel bad for the guy making 250k base salary if he doesn't get his $3 million bonus this year. And I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on that one. But that example was just to give an example of how the bank compensation model works, to show how totally different it is from essentially all other industries where the bonus is merely a nominal amount of extra cash on top of the base salary already received. It's important to understand that these $5 million bankers aren't taking home $4.5 million in salary, and then also expecting a 500k bonus at year's end. The vast, vast majority of the highest-paid bank employees' compensation comes in that year-end bonus.

The issue is more pressing once you step down the ladder a bit from the highest-paid bank employees. It would not be uncommon for a senior vice president-type at a bank, let's say a non-banker and non-trader, to make maybe 6, 700 thousand dollars a year, but again more than half of that money coming in a year-end bonus. I believe I have said here myself that my own compensation at the bank was more than half in a year-end bonus. The fact of the matter is -- and most people, including the president, don't seem to quite grasp this -- is that it's not nearly as simple as just paying no bonus to all the bank employees in 2008. Not only was more than half of my total compensation coming out of my bonus at year's end, but the base salary I was paid was below average for my field in this area. Far below. Now with the bonus, that more than makes up for any shortfall, but the whole compensation model in the banks is set up like this. Mostly everyone gets paid well below average on the base salary, and then gets bonuses that make them whole (and then some, in many cases) at year's end. Think of waiters and waitresses, who are not even required to be paid minimum wage in salary because it is understood that their tips will get them where they need to be. With bank employees, that's the same function that the bonus serves.

So my point in all this is just to show the folly of simply saying that no banks should pay any bonuses this year because of the problems they have had. All of the good employees would leave in a heartbeat (as well they should) if they got no bonuses, because the entire industry would be grossly undercompensated then, compared to market averages, and even compared in many cases simply to the amount those employees would need to meet their expenses for the year. Forcing all of the best talent to leave the banks by deliberately keeping them from being able to support their families would be a foolish strategy that no one could really support with logic. And yet so many people this week seem to be saying just that. Even President Obama seemed to suggest that the banks who have received federal help this year should not be paying out any bonuses. That is a ridiculous assertion and it is something which should not be done in the middle of a year like this. If you want to tell the banks that they can't pay bonuses in future years, then fine, this gives the banks the chance to determine who their best people are and to raise the base salaries of those employees so that, starting next year, their need to receive a bonus just to be able to meet their expenses is alleviated. But saying that the banks shouldn't be allowed to pay any bonuses this year because of their current troubles is something that only someone with no understanding of how not-truly-discretionary those bonuses really are. I know plenty of people at the banks making 70k in salary with 70k or more in bonus, working a job that any non-bank would pay that same person 120k base and little to no bonus for. I don't see how the answer to this year's financial crisis is to make that guy get by for a year with just 70k in salary.

All that being said, the banks might have really just screwed themselves royally here with these bonus payments. As much as everything I've just said above is undoubtedly true, the bottom line is that the $18.4 billion in bonus payments coming out of Wall Street for 2008 is the sixth largest aggregate bonus pool on record for the banking industry. In fact, $18.6 billion in bonuses basically just takes the banks back down to the bonus levels they paid out in 2004, when the market and the economy were chugging along just fine:



Paying out the sixth-largest bonus pool in history in a year that has seen this kind of carnage and that saw many of the banks needing billions of dollars of taxpayer funds to stay afloat certainly does not sound right to me. All these effers had to do was tell their employees what I solemnly guarantee you they were mostly expecting anyways, which is that bonuses, while still coming, would only be roughly 20% of last year's record levels due to the current calamity in the industry. Yes, some people would have left their jobs as a result as I mentioned above, but not nearly in the numbers that would be more or less forced to go if you paid them no bonus at all. While you can't really pay someone 60% of market salary and then give them no bonus and expect them to stay, it is much more palatable to pay them 60% of market salary and then give them only enough of a bonus to be making around the average level of compensation for their positions, or maybe even a bit under average, given the year we have just been through in the financial sector.

If the banks were smarter, they would have paid out 20 or 25% of last year's bonus levels instead of 40-50%, and gotten the aggregate number down below $10 billion. Again, paying no bonuses is simply not reality given the sub-market base salaries all the banks pay their employees, but somewhere in the $9-10 billion range in total bonuses would make all the difference to me. Then the banks would have been able to claim that they are paying bonus levels that were paid out in the mid 1990s, which is right in line with where the stock prices are now for the most part. And this frankly makes sense to me since I know the banks have to pay out some bonuses to enable their employees to get up to at least close to market compensation. Why they had to go and pay out the 6th highest aggregate bonuses in history just boggles the mind, doesn't it? Clearly, Wall Street is out of whack with what is fair and what is right in this environment. And to think that it is their sector which not only is most directly feeling the brunt of the troubles but also is essentially the cause of the whole crisis, that just makes this $18.4 billion figure stink to high heaven all the more.

I say that the banks might really have screwed themselves here, because even though President Obama has been outspoken in his understanding of the necessity to save our banking system as quickly as possible, it's not like this guy is a friend to the rich bankers like many of our recent executives could fairly be called. Obama is not looking to help the super-rich by any means, and regardless of his stated desire to save the banks in general, the guy will still have plenty of discretion when it comes to exactly how that is executed. Obama could do a lot of things to hurt the individuals employed at these banks who paid out such ridiculous bonuses that Obama on Thursday referred to as "outrageous" and "shameful". The solution to the banking crisis could include clawbacks of executive and other compensation paid to employees over the past year or more. It could include requirements that executives involved in these bonus payout decisions step down from their posts, all of them. Given the shameful, outrageously greedy and out-of-touch behavior these banks have just shown the new president, he might be far more willing to endorse a solution to the banking crisis that involves a total wipeout of these banks' existing equity, or one that requires the banks to feel the pain of fully writing down all their troubled assets before his new proposed "bad bank" will buy their assets.

The 2008 Wall Street bonuses were a great chance for the country's largest banks to show the new administration how contrite they are, how much they are tightening their own purse strings, and just generally how clearly they recognize and accept their own role in the financial crisis and the economic tumble that has overtaken the United States and the rest of the world over the past year or so. Instead, those mf'ers showed Obama and his team just how entitled they really are, and just how out of touch they are with the rest of the free world. When you've got the guy who's about to make major decisions regarding your entire company's and entire industry's future calling you "outrageous" and "shameful" at the very same time he is engaged in discussions about saving your industry, you know you fawked up. Big time. And now, let's all hope they have to pay the price when the latest "solution" is finally crafted by the Obama team.

Labels: , , ,

15 Comments:

Blogger Chad C said...

Perception is reality to ever joe blow average American like myself. My tax dollars lining the pockets of others enrages me, I don't even care about the circumstances. I am almost hoping everything falls now and we fall into a period of anarchy ;). Clearly the rich are doing whatever they can to keep themselves and their friends rich at any cost......

11:45 PM  
Blogger OhCaptain said...

As Chad and to some degree what you said, perception is what's important here.

People outside of the $700k price range don't really care if the paltry wage of $700k is too small. It's still 20 times larger then the paycheck they used to get and somehow they managed to survive.

Greed is not new to the Wall Street executives but I have generally not been in favor of rewarding the same business leaders that managed to lose billions of dollars.

A large tech firm that used to exist here in Minnesota a while back had a CEO. In one of the last years of the company, they paid him a bonus that was slightly larger then company's posted loss for the year. Had the company not paid the CEO any money, they would have made a profit. As a shareholder, I was bit pissed by this.

I'm not sure leadership like that is worth paying for. I can run a company in the toilet without trying to hard. Seems like the job pays pretty well though. I might need to polish up the resume. I can bet $20 billion on a keno card too.

12:02 AM  
Blogger Bayne_S said...

At every non-start up job I have had employees from the director level up have received half (or more) of their compensation each year in the form of a bonus. Every time there was a formula involved and 1st item listed in formula was net profit. There was also a 2nd limit on the bonuses that total of all bonuses could not exceed 15% of total net profit.

The BofA execs who just received $25B in Federal money should take their private jet to Washington to explain why Merrill Lynch portion needed to pay out $15B in bonuses.

Now that I work startups my expectation is my salary makes up 20% of my total compensation. If this company fails this year can I get my bailout too?

12:04 AM  
Blogger Blinders said...

Let's just pull back the TARP funds and let em fail. A job with no bonus is better than no job. How would they have paid these bonuses without tarp? I say fuck these greedy bankers.

2:03 AM  
Blogger Bayne_S said...

Even under the guise of "normal compensation" can you justify Merrill Lynch employees receiving bonuses from TARP funds while I am sure Bear Stearns and Lehman employees did not?

Paulson's whims about which company survived of three should not have seen that kind of disparity to employee (and shareholders).

2:16 AM  
Blogger Chad C said...

Wow, Blinders that is the first thing you ever said that I agreed with!! Time for the rich to start making some cut backs like the middle class and the poor! Maybe cut out your 8 Starbucks trips per day, daily "man"icures, and live in a family size appropriate home you yuppie fucks?? I like how Sen. McCaskill literally called all of these people IDIOTS today on capital hill. She raises a valid point, "how do bankers getting bailed out make more money than the president"???

3:09 AM  
Blogger Astin said...

Yah, my reply is at the blog. It's long and meandering... what else is new?

Short version: "Bankers" are overpaid, but there are some who still made money for the firms, and they shouldn't be penalized the same as those who lost billions. If your team loses the World Series, but your superstar had MVP numbers, do you dock his pay?

3:20 AM  
Blogger Irongirl01 said...

My company (one of the biggest for profit health insurers) for the past few years has paid a year end bonus which is different then the monthly bonus program I also participate in. The year end bonus funding is dependent on us meeting our KPM's (key performance metrics) in other words how well did we meet our goals. It amounts to a little more then an extra pay check for those of us who qualify (we are all ranked against each other). I am pretty certain that my industry has standard KPMs and we are accountable to our plan sponsers.

short of my vested pension from Goldman Sachs I am out of the wall street rat race. Please tell me what firm met any of its key performance measurements and are there any on the street? My guess is fees were way down in M&A land, there were huge trading losses in mortgage backed securities etc. And as the value of the assets managed plummeted so did the fees collected for managing those assets. what im trying to say is if the bonuses were tied to performance nothing should have been paid because wall street bled red ink all year.

i understand you cant change the rules of the game mid year as to employees salary. but a job at 250k is better then no job at all. Just ask your former colleague at Lehman who has a writeup in the NY Post today on his new stay at home dad gig.

4:24 AM  
Blogger Lance Brown said...

So how did the banking compensation scheme for high-end workers get so F-ed up? I can't imagine putting myself into an employment situation where a large slice of the money I need to meet my yearly expenses would come from pure bonus money. I guess some people thrive on that kind of pressure.

5:35 AM  
Blogger Micah Seymour said...

While you shuffle worthless paper around bitching about 250K base pay with no bonuses, some of us in the real world do things like teach grade school children to read for an eighth of that.

Fuck you and your bonuses. Gimme my fucking money back.

2:58 PM  
Blogger Micah Seymour said...

Ahem, having gotten that out of my system, I see your point Hoy.

Now fuck you, and gimme my money back;)

3:00 PM  
Blogger Rob1606 said...

As Lance asked, can you explain why the payment system in the banking sector is so strange?

6:01 PM  
Blogger NewinNov said...

I'm not familar with the banking industry but I still believe any form of bonuses should be tied to some pre-establishing industry metrics as mentioned earlier. How can you rightfully provide a bonus when the company failed in its mission, regardless of the industry as a whole? And where would all this talent move to if all companies in the finanical sector used the same bonus formula. For the average joe attempting to survive off of $35K/year, some of these compensation levels are not understandable. Tie bonuses to performance.

1:31 AM  
Blogger 4dbirds said...

You might have answered this in your post, but darling that thing was so long and my a.d.d. will not allow me to do more just skim over it but......... I can't help but think this system of paying people with a year end bonus was used because it benefited the banking companies tax wise or some other way.

It's very difficult for me to shed a tear. I used to be in the army and put my literal ass on the line for 25K a year.

10:32 PM  
Blogger TripJax said...

Let me preface the below paragraph with the note that I have always worked my tail off to do what is right for the company I work for. That said...

When I started my job I got $0 bonus. I've been with them nearly a decade. Last year I got a bonus that was 40% of my salary. This year I'll be happy to get a fruit basket. What a crazy world.

12:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home