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).

Mayor Boris still does not get it!

One nearly has to feel sorry for Goldman Sachs - though I would hazard a guess that the people there would not give a fig for our sympathy. But when even politicians such as London's mayor Boris Johnson who do not really have a say in banking regulation start taking aim at banker's bonuses we have to take a stand. Fact number one two and three in the sorry saga of the credit crunch is simply the total failure of banking supervision. And Boris and his fellow-travellers in the political class are barking up the wrong tree. All the politically-inspired interventions in the banking crisis poured oil on the fire and if anything made matters worse (apart from being arbitrary and discriminatory in their treatment of the various banks involved). And even more regrettable is the failure of the 'International Community' to agree on improved and effective rules and regulations.

EU wants automatic exchange of Tax information

The EU develops more and more into a bureaucratic and undemocratic monster. The latest news is the 'demand' for an automatic exchange of tax information about foreign bank customers between member states. The EU was originally declared to be an economic union but the main instigators behind the 'project' always intended this stated purpose to be the Trojan horse that would allow their statist fantasies to be imposed piecemeal on an unsuspecting population. Napoleon and Hitler certainly would have been well-advised to try this approach rather than go the route of military conquest.The raison d'etre of a state is that the citizens of that state enjoy full sovereignty over their affairs. Delegating powers to a foreign authority - especially one that they have no control over - is a grave violation of that principle. In the case of taxes there is no reason to inform any foreign government in any way. The whole purpose of putting money into another country is to remove it from the sticky fingers of the home government. The host country than in turn can tax the affected funds in any way it wishes. In the interest of tax harmony it should not favor foreign investors in any way and give them different terms than those offered to home country investors.The home country of the funds concerned has in turn full authority to tax the money as long as it is in the country. If it so wishes it can create an 'Iron Curtain' and prevent money from leaving the country.Just imagine what 'full information' would have meant in past periods: would the Dutch have 'informed' the corrupt French regime of Louis XIV about the investments that prudent French citizens had made in Amsterdam, or should the French government of the 1920s have informed the thuggish Communist government of the USSR?Europe prospered BECAUSE there was no uniformity of government and religion had finally given way to a civil regime after centuries of struggle. How much longer can the control freaks in Brussels be allowed to destroy the fruits of these battles?

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.

Goldman Sachs - Investment Bank or Commercial Bank?

The answer to this question may be obvious but since autumn of last year Goldman Sachs has switched to being a bank. And the problem with Goldman now being a bank will really be the following: how can the firm justify the banking status when a disproportionately large amount of revenues/profits is derived from trading or advisory work? How much did Goldman really lend to business and consumers during the past 12 months it is a bank? In addition, how much longer are banks allowed to conduct non-bank business, e.g. own other businesses (even if it is via the conduit of private equity - managed directly or farmed out to other PE firms).

Implicit government guarantee for banks

Niall Ferguson refers to the the implicit government guarantee for financial institutions deemed 'too big to fail' (Daily Telegraph, 6 October 2009) in a way that seems to imply that managements managed their business recklessly because they relied on being baled out if things did not work out well. We would dispute that managements were that devious and prefer the alternative explanation that - like most market participants - a lot of factors combined to overwhelm managements. A lot of mistakes were made and warnings were ignored but were few were really able to predict the extent of the panic that finally pulled markets to the brink of the abyss. What we are now really worried about is the fact that very little progress is being made in reforming the financial system in a coherent and speedy way.

Who should work in financial services?

An article in today's Wall Street Journal is a timely reminder to repeat the career advice we often give when asked the question: 'Should I pursue a career in financial services?' The key point we always make is that you should not choose your profession based only on the expected level of compensation. During the past ten years too many people were lured into City and Banking jobs based on the reports about extremely high salaries paid to some lucky professionals. But this exceptional period may not last forever and spending your working life doing a job that you are not really passionate about is a life of misery. When I started to work with a stockbroker I did it because the stock market was already one of my hobbies during High School and I would have worked in the Securities business even if salaries were just on a level with most other skilled professions.

Lloyds TSB - Neelie does it again!

This is a full-time job - keeping up with the arbitrary rulings of an unelected bureaucrat in the twilight years of a career spent sailing through various public sector jobs! Mrs. Kroes even finds time to chair Poets of all Nations in her spare time. But on a more serious note we think that the latest threat to Lloyds TSB - while maybe justified in principle - is lacking any moral justification as long as no one (and we wait for contributions from any reader who can provide them) has given us an explicit explanation of the yardsticks that the EU Kommissars apply in their rulings. (see our earlier comment further down for more on this scandal).

Employment Tribunals as job destroyers

The avalanche of employment legislation during the past 10+ years certainly has done nothing to make London - or the UK - a more attractive location for business. Blaming the EU does not wash as most of the legislation was home grown. A particularly vexing institution for employers are the employment tribunals. They can only be described as 'shadow' courts where normal standards of due process and above all common sense do not exist. While employees often can feel unjustly treated by their superiors and colleagues - and we would have a few stories to tell as well - the growing absurdity of the claims made by some employees can only be explained by a desire to abuse the tribunals in order to make a fast buck - or million in some cases. Young people just past the mark of 30 years claim to have suffered nervous breakdowns, be tormented by nightmares and claim to be unable for any work because of bad treatment they have suffered at work. No proper proof is needed if implausible accusations picked right out of a soap opera are taken at face value by members of the tribunal who are unaccountable and hold their positions thanks to the machinations of an inscrutable government bureaucracy. And best (or worst) of all - the accusing employee has no costs to bear, file a claim and let the system take care of the rest. We can only say - foreign employer, if you come to Britain, be warned!

IIR warns on lack of global banking rules

We usually view the opinions of the Institute of International Finance with a pinch of salt as it is a think tank and/or lobby funded by the banking industry. Yesterday's appeal to the participants of the forthcoming G20 meeting in Pittsburgh served as a reminder that one year after the collapse of Lehman and more than two years into the banking and credit crisis precious little progress has been made to forge a consistent solution to prevent a similar crisis in the future. We doubt that high-profile meetings will really produce more than pious sermons and suggest that a congress should be organised with the task to iron out a lasting solution. After all, the Congress of Vienna was also not just a photo-opportunity for the assembled dignitaries and the same can be said for the Continental Congress in the 13 founding colonies in America.