Ostentatious Consumption - good or bad?

Goldman Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein has asked his employees to avoid being seen as big spenders. The jury is out whether this is just a cosmetic PR gimmick or whether Goldman itself is in some doubt about the justice of last years highly selective bank rescues funded by the public. But however that may be, today's headline that a hedge fund manager is splashing out a reported £60 million for a super yacht may not help the alternative fund management industry in its effort to convince European legislators to enact more lenient industry regulations.

New Credit Suisse compensation structure

It remains to be seen how the growing complexity of compensation schemes such as the one published by Credit Suisse will affect the ability of the sponsoring organizations to attract, motivate and retain talent. Given my experience, the annual discussion of expected and realised bonus allocations has already taken up a lot of nervous energy among the staff when things were much simpler. The new layers of complexity open the door to more arbitrary decisions and distracting political infighting. Most employees have zero influence on decisions taken by top management (often by the CEO alone) and cannot be expected to suffer from the impact of these decisions when they turn out to have been wrong (which may be a long time after the decision has been taken and - even worse - a long time after they were awarded their very conditional compensation).

Paradox of Banking reform

News that some investment banks are on the way to make record profits this year and as a consequence will be able to pay very high bonuses to their staff highlights a paradox: Governments and Regulators so far have been unable to agree on any meaningful and coherent approach to banking reform but at the same time are unhappy about the results of their inaction. Businesses that are successful are encouraged to do the opposite of what they are supposed to do in a market system: to maximise their profits. The result is a muddle where firms may avoid paying out the bonuses they think their staff are due. In a roundabout way this may well benefit the affected staff in a positive way as the higher level of retained profits will lead to higher share prices in the longer term. This will allow staff to realise higher profits on their share options and shares.

Neelie Kroes dabbles in bonus debate

We would have been disappointed if Neelie Kroes would not have tried to get involved in the debate about banker's pay and bonuses. After all, every bureaucrat has a natural urge to increase his power whenever and where ever the opportunity exists to do so. And even better when the taxpayer pays for you and the citizen has no chance to control your action. However, when judging the competence level of Ms. Kroes' department we always have to remind ourselves of the curious fact that while the department refuses to give detailed information about the background of its staff there are the portraits of the drivers on the website. Talk about high life in Brussels! Repeated requests to disclose the yardsticks that are applied during the investigation of competition cases have been stonewalled. So we do not expect that it will be made transparent what type of bonus and pay regulations will be applied in the case of banks that receive state support.

Seven dwarfs - interesting comment from a Reader

Your post (Seven Dwarfs in Stockholm) is interesting in that it confirms the tendency to first blame others, the system etc when being held to account for behaviour. That type of self-righteous response never convinces anybody else outside the own group. The politicians' thrust may be crude and may have negative side-effects, but it is triggered by an apparent unwillingness of bankers to appreciate how others, society at large perceives their behaviour and its crippling effects on the financial system and the economy and to take responsibility for that. Your type of response will only make politicians more determined to ensure bankers will not be able to go the same path again and you will become more convinced of the stupidity of politicians. It takes us nowhere. A meaningful step forward would be made if bankers could say they appreciate the concerns of society and are willing to come with new responsible remuneration systems that also pay justice to the inherent risks ultimately born by society. If bankers could be transparent on how they go about this, engage in a serious dialogue with society on remaining concerns, then the need for blunt politically driven regulatory measures would evaporate.

Equal pay for Women - comparing Apples and Oranges

The unelected chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission has decided that the current debate about compensation in the (investment) banking industry is too good an opportunity to miss. He offers his five cents of wisdom in an article headlined 'Her City bonus is a fifth the size of his' leaving the reader in no doubt what the likely conclusion of this piece of reasoned argument will be. The sub header gives the game away: it carries the subtle threat inherent in all socio-babble propagated by socialists and assorted hangers on of the nanny state: 'We'll help the City to treat women fairly - or we'll force them'. (Does Mr. Phillips now use the royal 'we'?). It is too tiresome to discuss the details of this so-called 'study' as it is perfectly clear from the outset that an extremely detailed comparison between workers at exactly the same employment situation is required if one wants to isolate the gender impact on basic and variable compensation. It is ironic that the department regularly involved with recruitment and compensation is ofther predominantly staffed by members of the fair sex. So there is already a slender bias in favour of women candidates and employees in many organisations.

Seven dwarfs in Stockholm

The seven finance ministers calling for strict limits on banker's bonuses in an open-ed article today (we spotted it first in a reference to Dagens Nyheter) do their intellectual standing no favours. If their collective wisdom only leads them to express crude judgements about the size of bonuses paid in financial services it is a sign of intellectual poverty. Rather than calling bonuses 'indecent' the ministers should concentrate on the causes of high bonuses. Otherwise their posturing lacks any credibility. Of course, we would agree that bonus payments in many cases are too high but that is due to lack of regulation, distortion in the competition and similar structural deficiencies in financial markets. Name-calling alone will not do as the same argument could be applied to compensation of sports stars, media stars and footloose international business men. Just remember that a certain Mr. Mittal is always listed as 'Briton's richest man' but it is unclear how much tax he pays in the country.

Caps on Banker's bonuses - Devil is in the Detail

When Gordon Brown tries to garner support for a limit on banker's bonuses one is reminded that talk is cheap. But the devil is in the detail: who decides? what is the right amount of bonus? what will be the side-effects? (certainly an increase in base pay, if not in other fringe benefits)What is a bank? If payment is regulated at banks, will people and business not migrate to other areas of financial markets like brokers, investment banks and hedge funds? (not to mention the likely migration to emerging financial centres that are outside the global G2/G7/G10/G20/OECD cartel?

Lessons from Dresdner Kleinwort fiasco

The news that three more former employees are suing Commerzbank for the payment of allegedly promised bonus payments should serve as a reminder of the dangers of trying to build a financial services business by putting together a collection of senior professionals. The danger of the winner's curse that threatens the success of many a corporate takeover is a real threat. Staff that is hired too expensively is a drag on profitability and may also dampen the team spirit as those employees of less favorable terms might resent being in a second tier in terms of pay and job security. Cobbling together professionals with disparate backgrounds will never be a substitute for a corporate culture that has developed organically. As a consequence while we do recommend selective hiring of senior professionals to fill gaps in an organisations managerial line-up we strongly advise clients not too neglect the systematic development of their existing staff.

Banking Pay - a better solution

Politicians and Media Pundits in several countries are currently discussing ways to control pay in the banking industry. Discriminatory laws aimed at the industry will only lead to more and more detailed interference in the market and create all sorts of counterproductive distortions (The Cuban Economic Model as final destination). A much more effective - and simpler - solution would be to focus on implementing much-needed banking reform. Controls on balance sheet risk and exposures would do much to prevent a future bank crisis and also limit the fallout if a bank fails - as has to be allowed to happen in a free enterprise system. A side-effect would be that commercial banking would become less profitable and this would automatically limit 'excessive' compensation of banking executives.

Wrong time to raise levels of base salaries

Several Investment Banks have decided (or are investigating) to increase basic pay of employees in compensation for (expected) lower bonus payouts in the future. We think that this rush to boost the fixed costs of the business may be pre-mature. A recent report predicted that global investment banking revenues will drop by about a quarter this year. Revenues from the Securities Business may also not hold up after a quite profitable period at the beginning of 2009 and revenues from Asset Management will remain under pressure. Then there is the political aspect as the industry has just been saved from itself at great expense to the taxpayer. Even the well-run companies can only thank governments as without the bailout they would have been gone down together with the weak banks in the financial tsunami of 2008. So it may appear that already well-paid professionals get compensated for the loss of bonuses that may not be there (or might be much reduced) at the end of 2009.

Tax, Regulation and Financial Centres

A cursory comparison of personal income tax rates would cause us to cry out: 'Go East young Man!' for the tax rates in Hong Kong and Singapore are certainly mouth-watering. Young professionals in particular have not yet put down strong roots and can afford to be venture-some, - and the really big hitters have the financial means to make it painless to relocate to friendlier tax regimes. Add to this headlines such as this one: 'FSA threatens City with higher fines' and the case for the long-term decline of the City and Europe as a Financial Centre becomes stronger.

Danger of trying to buy market share

A short press article ('As Merrill Lynch sputtered, it made a big bet on Brazil', Wall St Journal, 10 March 2009) reminded us of the danger of trying to buy market share in any business by throwing money at top people working for the competition. Not only is it far from certain that the executives lured away will flourish in a different business culture at the new employer. If their recruitment can only be effected at high - or even exorbitant - compensation levels it may also be an indicator that the business one tries to enter has already reached a peak and may no longer offer the growth prospects one is looking for.Selective hiring of top individuals at top compensation levels may be worthwhile in isolated cases. However, employers should take great care before committing themselves to a large financial outlay and conduct extra due diligence rather than getting carried away or 'falling in love' with prospective candidates.

Hats off to Peter Wuffli

We salute Peter Wuffli at UBS for turning down a Sfr 12 million bonus entitlement out of solidarity with the bank's staff and shareholders. Would it not be nice if Chuck Prince and Stan O'Neal showed similar contrition?

100% retention bonuses for Brokers

It seems strange that BofA is ready to offer substantial retention bonuses for the retail brokers at Merrill Lynch. Apart from the image-problem that this generosity might create in the present political climate one has to ask the following questions: where would all these brokers move to if they would not receive a retention bonus of this magnitude? Would clients be comfortable moving their funds in these uncertain times? Does Merrill Lynch not have any adequate no-compete clauses in its terms of employment that prevent the brokers from taking their clients with them? And if the financial advisers get these juicy retention payments, what will their customers thing most of whom probably have lost a lot of money?

Compensation: what now for cash vs stock split?

Some recent commentators have predicted that in the future the Securities Industry will pay a higher proportion of total compensation in the form of shares and options in order to stimulate a more risk-conscious behaviour pattern among staff. While this may sound plausible it does not necessarily make sense for the majority of employees in a securities firm.
Why should the government bond trader whose P&L is clearly visible at the end of each day and whose book does not contain any long-term risks be paid in instalments that only become due many years after he has produced the goods?The recent - and ongoing collapse - in the share prices of most brokerage firms and banks is in the majority hitting employees who did not have any influence on the poor decisions made by the senior management of those firms. To add insult to injury one could say that the top executives who have been asked to leave have done much better than those employees that are left behind and have to suffer the consequences of a rapid decline in the value of their company stock or share options that the ineptness of the departing senior managers has caused.

Non-Dom Taxes - Nail in the Coffin for London's City?

Ill-conceived taxes were instrumental in the development of the Eurocurrency and bond markets during the late 1960s and early 1970s. First the American Government in its wisdom introduced the so-called Interest Equalisation Tax in 1963 in order to make it more expensive for non-US borrowers to access the US capital market. Then the Swiss authorities levied penal tax rates on transactions involving Eurobonds and other securities. As a consequence, most business involving international securities decamped to London during the 1970s. Now Gordon Brown has decided to make his own mark on the history of the Euromarkets by introducing a special levy on foreigners involved in the international capital markets. Not only is the per-capital levy of £30000 per person highly arbitrary and unfair but the detailed regulations introduced are so complicated and wide-ranging as to provide the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. The London City should take note that in the intervening years the authorities in Switzerland and the USA have learned a lesson or two and that financial institutions - once gone from the City of London - are unlikely ever to return again.