While witnessing the post meltdown outlook and its effects on the global financial industry, even though it's been a difficult thing to realize that the old Wall Street and its banks are gone, on the other hand, there are issues that stir up discontent such as year-end bonuses.
Given the current financial outlook, for many people, could be difficult to accept that there are banks that still pay hefty bonuses. Let's watch Stacy Johnson's thoughts on this controversial issue and read...
For Dow Kim, 2006 was a very good year. While his salary at Merrill Lynch was $350,000, his total compensation was 100 times that - $35 million.
The difference between the two amounts was his bonus, a rich reward for the robust earnings made by the traders he oversaw in Merrill’s mortgage business.
Mr. Kim’s colleagues, not only at his level, but far down the ranks, also pocketed large paychecks. In all, Merrill handed out $5 billion to $6 billion in bonuses that year. A 20-something analyst with a base salary of $130,000 collected a bonus of $250,000. And a 30-something trader with a $180,000 salary got $5 million.
But Merrill’s record earnings in 2006 - $7.5 billion - turned out to be a mirage, The New York Times’s Louise Story writes.
The company has since lost three times that amount, largely because the mortgage investments that supposedly had powered some of those profits plunged in value.
Unlike the earnings, however, the bonuses have not been reversed.
As regulators and shareholders sift through the rubble of the financial crisis, questions are being asked about what role lavish bonuses played in the debacle. Scrutiny over pay is intensifying as banks like Merrill prepare to dole out bonuses even after they have had to be propped up with billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. While bonuses are expected to be half of what they were a year ago, some bankers could still collect millions of dollars.
Critics say bonuses never should have been so big in the first place, because they were based on ephemeral earnings. These people contend that Wall Street’s pay structure, in which bonuses are based on short-term profits, encouraged employees to act like gamblers at a casino - and let them collect their winnings while the roulette wheel was still spinning.
“Compensation was flawed top to bottom,” Lucian A. Bebchuk, a professor at Harvard Law School and an expert on compensation, told The Times. “The whole organization was responding to distorted incentives.”
Even Wall Streeters concede they were dazzled by the money. To earn bigger bonuses, many traders ignored or played down the risks they took until their bonuses were paid. Their bosses often turned a blind eye because it was in their interest as well.
“That’s a call that senior management or risk management should question, but of course their pay was tied to it too,” Brian Lin, a former mortgage trader at Merrill Lynch, told The Times.
The highest-ranking executives at four firms have agreed under pressure to go without their bonuses, including John A. Thain, who initially wanted a bonus this year since he joined Merrill Lynch as chief executive after its ill-fated mortgage bets were made. And four former executives at one hard-hit bank, UBS of Switzerland, recently volunteered to return some of the bonuses they were paid before the financial crisis. But few think others on Wall Street will follow that lead.
For now, most banks are looking forward rather than backward. Morgan Stanley and UBS are attaching new strings to bonuses, allowing them to pull back part of workers’ payouts if they turn out to have been based on illusory profits.
Those policies, had they been in place in recent years, might have clawed back hundreds of millions of dollars of compensation paid out in 2006 to employees at all levels, including senior executives who are still at those banks, The Times says, in the latest in a series of articles exploring the causes of the financial crisis.
Have a comment? Feel free to post!
No comments:
Post a Comment