Wall Street & Blogger Quotes on 90% 'Bonus Tax'
Posted by urbandigs
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 03:10 PM
A: Wall street is reeling with talk about this new tax on bonuses over $250K for TARP recipients of $5Bln+; pay back the government to get below that, and the new tax wont apply. Thousands of employees could be affected. The Senate votes on the measure next week. I can think of both very real reasons and very psychological reasons why this law is causing such nervousness for many; yes, even those that are not on wall street but are trying to sell high end Manhattan properties. I discussed last month the high end nature of this Manhattan housing adjustment. It appears we have entered the 'regulatory' phase of this crisis - expect more. The new tax law, if passed, will be retroactive for 2008 tax year bonuses since it would apply to bonuses paid out by TARP recipients after Dec 31st, 2008. Bonuses are generally paid out during the first four months of the new calendar year, based on 2008's production. What happens to those that got their bonus, cashed that check, and spent the money already? Doh!
The fact that this law is going to Senate, is causing an immediate psychological reaction for both buyers and sellers of Manhattan real estate. As one would expect, sellers are more nervous than they already have been and buyers have one more reason to be cautious. I did not do this people, so don't blame me for any effect out there; as the media, I'm sure many will blame me for this. I'm just telling you what I sense.
The real impact comes later when we see how deeply this affects those who still have their job, but have big mortgages, expensive lifestyles and much lower net income. Think further along the economic chain how this may affect the local economy. Also consider how 'retention of talent' plays out with this new law. Seems like there will be a lot of good people (yes, there are some out there) heading to firms with no connection to TARP funds. Expect wall street to innovate ways around any tax code change to reward employees and retain talent.
Here are random thoughts from wall streeters (posted anonymously of course) versus bloggers on the expected new bonus tax.
RANDOM WALL STREET THOUGHTS ON BONUS TAX
“Feels like we are on the titanic. Some are oblivious, still dancing to the band that's still playing. Others fighting to get in boats. Many stunned, wandering the deck, not realizing what's going on. The bridge arguing over who's is at fault (that's congress right now). I am outraged at the street's performance, but we should be worried that the situation is spiraling out of control. Our leaders have no idea what they are doing, and the market and the country doesn’t fully know that yet.”
"Although the public is cheering at effective potential bonus caps of $250,000 that this tax imposes, the ramifications for the global economy are huge. There is a trickle down effect, it does start at the top, the tap will be shut and every sector of the economy will suffer."
"I'm shocked that a New York representative (Charles Rangel - D New York) doesn't understand the ramifications for his own city. I would have expected this from an out of stater."
"I don't know who gets credit for this, but it goes like this: "When a poor American walks by a rich American's house he says "Someday I'm gonna be that guy". When a poor Irishman walks by a rich Irishman's house he says "Someday I'm gonna get that guy". In the past, that was very true, and it's the reason I left Ireland. It's an incredibly counterproductive attitude. Now I think the US has switched to this way of thinking."
"Instead of trying to prevent the spoiled cookie from crumbling and piecing back together all the tiny crumbs back in an effort to preserve the rotten cookie, we need to just let the cookie crumble, gather all the crumbs and bake another new, much better and improved cookie.
If we had let market and Darwinian forces work to begin with, these entities would have failed and we wouldn't be in this situation. As always, unintended consequences from market intervention always comes back to bite, and the bite is more damaging than the original problem.
Class warfare is a dangerous seed."
"The markets are damn near impossible to trade right now - not only because of deflationary and recessionary fears, but because no one knows what the government will come out and say next, and deciding to tax 90% of TARP bonus money only adds to the overall uncertainty. It's well known that our elected representatives are more concerned with the appearance of reform than with actual recovery, but this legislation is so flippant and irrelevant that it's downright embarrassing. If they want to focus on fairness, focus on the AIG counter parties."
SOME BLOGGER THOUGHTS ON BONUS TAX
TYLER DURDEN (Zero hedge) - "getting some more color for public disclosure but everyone i speak to who is solidly in the money this year (trader wise) is saying "screw this" i will get nothing at all and thus nobody has any incentive to take on any more risk and people are just unwinding profitable positions and planning on a beer break until the end of the year as they realize they will all get screwed one way or another."
ROLFE WINKLER (OptionARMageddon) - "Imagine building a sand castle to hold back a tsunami. Policy-makers are right to be very fearful of the tsunami's destructive power, but it's just too large to be held at bay. Either we recognize there's no stopping it, and retreat to higher ground with whatever meager resources we can salvage, or we take our stand on the beach and drown."
Your thoughts? Bloggers can reach me here to participate and publicize their thoughts.
Posted by paul.b
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 04:00 PM
People can spin this any way they like. As a sideliner, this makes me want to bid lower or wait longer.
Posted by Donald
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 04:28 PM
ok, I am not a lawyer or a CPA, but I have a very simple way to get around this 90% tax: Eliminate all bonuses and raise everyones' salary by 90%. Thsi way Wall St. people can look good in front of COngress when they tell them "We understand your outrage and that is why form this point on, there will be NO MORE BONUSES." Of course, they will leave out the fact that they raised their salaries.
Any thoughts on this tactic? Will we see it?
And personally, I do not think that sellers and buyers should be nerovus about this tax at all. We all know they are going to find a loophole to get around it. I give them 3 weeks.
Posted by Donald
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 04:29 PM
Correction: I should have written "raise everyones' salary by 30%," but you get the picture.
Posted by mobile-noah
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 05:22 PM
yes that concept is floating around. However, can firms afford to execute a company wide pay increase given state of markets, coming regulation, and continued pressure from balance sheets?going to a higher salary-minimum bonus structure seems risky to me given lack of protection for those that don't produce. Plus incentives for traders will be greatly reduced if they know no bonus can be achieved yet job is on line if they produce losses.
That may be what govt wants, given where we just came from. I see more traders leaving for smaller firms, hedge funds, and other companies unaffected by this tax; anyone not needing tarp
Posted by Retail Trader
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 05:25 PM
This is great news. Some of us "little guys" or independent traders COMPLETELY unaffiliated w/the big banks get to have our day in the sun.
Let us review the differences between retail traders (who put up their own capital) and spoiled traders from the big banks (who borrow taxpayer's money).
Retail traders:
1) Must post margin
2) Have trades marked to market daily
3) Have their funds in segregated, escrow accounts separate from firm funds (e.g. for futures, options, IRAs)
4) Have trades cash settled w/in 2-3 business days
5) Follow t/a
6) Practice money management
7) Are regulated by the SEC and CFTC
ABS and big banking traders:
1) Do not post margin (can you imagine selling naked puts and never getting assigned? see #4)
2) Have trades marked quarterly
3) Mix client and firm funds together so they can pay themselves bonuses out of client money
4) Delay settlement for as long as possible until the taxpayer is forced to guarantee their losses
5) Do not follow T/A
6) Completely lack money management skills (e.g. LEH, BSC, AIG, C, etc.)
7) Are unregulated
Posted by Jose R
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 05:30 PM
Donald, see:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123724826580949187.html
Wall Street Pursues Pay Loopholes
Compensation Caps Drive Some Firms to Weigh Options; Higher Salaries?
In response to expected bonus restrictions, officials at Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley and other financial institutions that got government aid are discussing increasing base salaries for some executives and other top-producing employees, people familiar with the situation said.
From Tuesday's edition.
Posted by Avi
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 05:53 PM
Workers at firms that need taxpayer money to stay alive are effectively government employees. As such, they should be treated like a worker at the post office or DMV. Or we could just reduce the size of government and let all these leeches loose their jobs.
Posted by Noah
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:01 PM
***COMMENT PUBLISH ERRORS?***
I have had 2 separate readers contact me about issues with commenting. I cant figure it out because new comments are being published. But if you have had an issue recently, can you please email me at nrosenblatt + at sign + halstead.com?
Thanks
Posted by IT person
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:07 PM
When will someone point out to the media that a large portion of the bonus that people get paid corresponds to base pay?
The base salary caps out pretty early in banks, somewhere in the 150K range. So whether your a mid-range performer managing a small team, or a senior exec managing a few hundred people, you're in the same salary range. If you've been in the industry 10+ years, in reality a large portion of your bonus is really base salary.
So let's be clear, you're not asking these folks to give back a discretionary performance-related bonus, you are asking them to take a huge pay cut.
Fine if that's what people want, but let's call it what it is.
Grrr.
Posted by Monty
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:16 PM
The tax is not on bonuses. It's based on total compensation. If your household income is over $250k and if you work for a TARP recipient, anything over 250k gets taxed at 90%. And here's another little bit to chew on: if you're married and fiing separately, it's $125k. So if your spouse works for a completely non-affiliated company, this legislation will drag her down too. Take a look at the bill on the US Congress website. It was hastily put together and extremely destructive. It's going to be a lot like the 70's in NYC again.
Posted by Noah
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:20 PM
Thank you Monty for adding that. I should have put that in the piece. I have a feeling the tax concept will be changed a bit from what we know think it will be
Posted by justin
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 06:27 PM
hysteria.
The tax is on employees of the handful of companies that have received incredible bailouts from the public sector. It is a very rough instrument to do the job the boards and CEOs did not do: they did (and do not) realize that if not for public help, they would be in chapter 11 -- and an administrator would be telling them who to pay, and who to fire!
Posted by cfranch
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 07:15 PM
This law was passed by the House of Reps, notorious for its cowardice and faux populism. Let's see what the Senate does. Obama is already signaling he doesn't like the bill. My guess is we get a piece of swiss cheese-lots of loopholes to jump through.
Posted by Donald
Fri Mar 20th, 2009 11:20 PM
I heard th Senate bill only taxes the bonuses at 70%, so already the bill has been watered down.
Posted by OT
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 01:28 AM
True, but the Senate bill taxes any bonus above $50K regardless of total income - burden on employee will be 35%, and 35% to the employer.
Posted by Glenn
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 05:51 AM
Hi Noah,
Just my two cents on this, as much as I really don't like what is happening in AIG, what with the constant bailouts and then these bonuses, I think the corrective measure that the House has taken with regards to imposing the 90% tax on these bonuses is just too extreme and borders on unconstitutional (which I bet, when taken to the courts, it probably will be). That said, I think the best way forward is to suck it up (I believe that some due diligence on the part of the government would have prevented this) and learn from it.
Good read. I've just recently come upon your site and it's a great source of info. Look forward to hearing from you again soon.
Glenn
Posted by BringEmOn
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 10:37 AM
What's been missed in this whole debate by Wall Street is the argument that a huge bonus structure only encourages short-term profits at the expense of sound corporate governance. The incentive structure is false and encourages reckless financial risk-taking. Proof in point: look where we are now.
As much as I would want to see the NYC real estate market thrive (I own), this market shouldn't decide the fate of the entire economy. Maybe if Wall Street hadn't run this economy off a cliff, they could call the shots. You're insolvent and you don't deserve consideration at this point.
Posted by Buyer
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 11:25 AM
I'm so sick of hearing about "spoiled traders" and such from people who clearly have no idea about Wall St. This law would impact thousands of highly experienced senior people in IT, HR, and other areas. These are people who have sacrificed by working long hours at stressful jobs for years to make it to the top of their professions. They are in no way spoiled.
If this passes and is retro-active it has the potential to destroy the financial lives of many families that had absolutely nothing to do with causing the financial crisis.
Posted by BringEmOn
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 11:37 AM
I work on Wall Street and I still believe they simply have it wrong. Game over.
Posted by BringEmOn
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 11:39 AM
Buyer: I work on Wall Street, too. But, even I can see that Wall Street is in denial. GAME OVER.
Posted by HR Gal
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 11:50 AM
Buyer: I had no idea IT and HR people on Wall st. make more than 250k a year. And a bonus on top of that? DAYAM!! Clearly I'm working at the wrong firm.
Posted by Buyer
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 11:52 AM
That is just stupid. If these companies can't pay competitive salaries to the people who keep the lights on, it will be a disaster.
Posted by Eric
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 11:52 AM
BringEmOn - How about the argument that we as a society became addicted to debt and spent well above our means. The problem I have with most people who say "Wall Street brought the country down" is that those same people had no complaints 3 years ago when they were buying their McMansions, gas guzzling SUV's, and Coach handbags using someone else's money brokered by finance. We Americans became darn good at spending money that wasn't ours to begin with. Of course it's equally American to point the finger at everyone else except ourselves when the piper comes back to get paid. It is so much easier to blame everyone else for our own mistakes, and unfortunately that is what is going on now.
Clearly the government is again giving the people what they want instead of what we need. Over the last 7 years, Americans wanted cheap credit and a quick way out of the internet-led recession. So, we got record low rates and zero borrowing standards. Today, Americans want to blame everyone else for their troubles. And so now we have Charles Rangel (the tax evading, law breaking hypocrite that he is) writing horrible policy with huge implications for thousands of innocent bystanders. What we need is nationalization of the banks, a fair tax code, and a set a basic social services that don't go overboard. We also need a new set of societal values; possibly one where 'My Sweet Sixteen' and Paris Hilton don't have quite the same appeal.
Posted by BringEmOn
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 11:59 AM
Eric -- I agree with what you're saying. But, it still stands that Wall Street helped drive the insanity. Everyone is taking a serious haircut right now and so should they.
Posted by Buyer
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 12:00 PM
HR Gal - I have twenty two years of experience and run a front office IT team. I can assure you that highly experienced people with unique skill sets who are based in Manhattan (less so the further away you are) can pull in 250K or more. People who are experts on both software development and financial products are not a dime a dozen to be sure. I expect the same thing can be said about people in lots of other roles.
Note that he law is for COMBINED family incomes. So if you make 125K base and your hubby makes 125K and then you get a 10K bonus, you will owe 9K to the Govt.
Posted by FatCat
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 12:12 PM
Buyer: How about we let 'the market' decide how Wall Street should get paid? If you're firm is solvent and can afford to pay you huge bonuses -- great. But, if you threw away your money in a huge Ponzi scheme that is destroying plenty ordinary Americans (clearly not as talented as Wall Street's 'top talent') who also help 'keep the lights on', then you get paid what an insolvent company can afford.
Posted by Buyer
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 12:35 PM
This has nothing to do with huge bonuses. Anyone with a combined family income over 250K is impacted.
Posted by Buyer
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 12:41 PM
This has nothing to do with huge bonuses. Anyone with a combined family income over 250K is impacted. If this law just impacted those "threw away your money in a huge Ponzi scheme" I would be for it, but if you take the time to read about it you will see that this is not what it does.
>>plenty ordinary Americans clearly not as talented as Wall Street's 'top talent'
I'm sorry if you find this offensive, but SOME people on Wall St. have skills that others do not. I'm an expert in C++, Java, computer algorithms, and many types of financial products. I understand how a trading desk works and what their software needs are. If you want to hire Joe The Plumber to take my place, go ahead and good luck to America's financial system.
Posted by FatCat
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 12:44 PM
So, if we alter the legislation so that it doesn't apply to combined income but only the income of the individuals working for the bailout firms -- then you're fine with it all? I don't think so. You simply don't want to face the music.
Those making the case that Wall St should be left to its own devices, that they are in fact so valuable that the economy would fall over without them (isn't that what just happened???), are as guilty of playing rhetorical games as our Congress is (I'm not proud of that circus, either.)
Let's just stop the denial -- this is likely the Second Great Depression and the Guilded Age isn't coming back anytime soon. No more crying.
Posted by FatCat
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 12:46 PM
Buyer -- I am a Java programmer for the NYSE and consider myself talented as well. Again, we aren't calling the shots anymore.
Posted by Buyer
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 01:09 PM
I'm not in denial. I understand that things are bad for a lot of people and I support legislation to help them (universal health care, extended unemployment benefits, etc). That is not what this tax law is about. This is about revenge with a blunt scalpel.
If the legislation was targeted at the people who made the decisions that caused the problems, I'd be all for it. This is a question of basic fairness. I'm all for a more egalitarian society and would have no issue with a far more progressive tax system. Let the lawyers, doctors, traders, bankers, politicians, and senior executives pay their share. But don't punish upper-middle class people for working at a mega corporation that made some bad decisions in the executive suite.
Posted by FatCat
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 01:12 PM
That's fair. I would agree with that take.
Posted by Jency
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 01:58 PM
<>
Except, they didn't keep the lights on. Without bailout, you would not be complaining about a 90% tax; you'd be looking for a job.
I work in s/w; no IT guy in Silicon Valley makes $250K+, domain-specific or not. You aren't being paid that amount for your skills; it's only because you work in finance in Manhattan.
In terms of local trickle-down effect, it would have happened anyway if there was no bailout.
Posted by uwsider
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 03:14 PM
The max base salary I've seen for an IT/Programmer was 200k in silicon valley. I'd expect that to be similar in NYC. Typical is around 120k-150k for **TOP** experienced engineers.
If you are talking about a director/VP of IT then that is another matter.
Posted by Jency
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 04:30 PM
Another problem with NY is the title inflation in the finance world. *Everybody* is a Sr. Director or VP, even if they are a programmer. The real world doesn't work that way.
Posted by Retail Trader
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 05:12 PM
There is a solution to the housing glut. It is called "Section 8" housing.
Make all those new hudson river condos applicable to hard-working, middle class minority families.
Or is Manhattan real estate open only to those who are White, Jewish, and work on Wall Street?
Posted by Eric
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 05:15 PM
Jency - I've lived in Silicon Valley and I now live in NY. The cost of living is much higher in NY. Just taking a salary out of context doesn't do justice to how much more expensive it is in NY. Northern California isn't exactly cheap, but it doesn't compare to the cost of living here.
Posted by Eric
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 05:15 PM
Jency - I've lived in Silicon Valley and I now live in NY. The cost of living is much higher in NY. Just taking a salary out of context doesn't do justice to how much more expensive it is in NY. Northern California isn't exactly cheap, but it doesn't compare to the cost of living here.
Posted by HT!
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 06:00 PM
The Party Is Over
Why does a bank has to have proprietary trading activities?
Why do they have to be in M&A?
What is the basic business of a bank?
It takes in deposits and loans that money out at a spread. End of story.
Not a glamorous business, more like a utility.
To attract deposits it has to offer attractive rates, basic retail services and services for the business a/c.
If someone wants to do M&A go to a boutique shop.
If someone wants to bet on market movements go to a hedgefund.
The 250K will be soon an attractive salary within that basic banking business.
Everybody else has to look for something/one else.
Posted by lars
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 06:23 PM
Anyone who voted for Obama and a Democrat Congress have no cause to complain! Do you think things would have deteriorated like this were McCain elected?
Posted by Jency
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 06:59 PM
I'm from Northern CA and now live in NY. My salary didn't double when I moved. In fact, salaries are lower statistically here than in SV, outside of finance, despite the (equally) high cost of living.
Personally, I have found some things higher (rent, not buy) and some things lower (transportation, less insurance needs, no gas). New Yorkers also spend their money a lot differently than Northern Californians; they are more showy.
That notwithstanding, the best comparison for Manhattan is the city of SF (i.e., someone working in the Valley and living in the city). The houses vs. apartments, cars vs. not, private schools vs. public disparity just throws it all out of whack if you try anything else.
Interesting article:
http://www.decheung.com/2007/08/cost-of-living-is-pretty-high-in-silicon-valley-ny-times.html
Posted by BringEmOn
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 07:24 PM
> If the legislation was targeted at the people who made the
> decisions that caused the problems, I'd be all for it. This is
> question of basic fairness.
Here's an argument that I hadn't heard before...
Apparently, the only folks responsible for this mess are Congress, a couple of CEOs, and subprime borrowers. As long as most of Wall St was just 'following orders' they definitely aren't cupable for any unethical behavior they contributed to.
Seems like we've got a double-standard here. One, Wall St professionals are so indispensable and such masters of financial wizardry that they certainly can't be asked to return bonuses they received for sham profits. Two, Wall St professionals were just doing what they were told and certainly can't be held accountable for their role in the whole affair.
There's a real disconnect here.
Posted by cfranch
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 07:27 PM
Hey retail trader what does your anti-semitism have to do with price of real estate in Manhattan? Really dude get your nose out of the Protocols of Elders of Zion. Maybe you should move out of your mother's basement too.
Posted by trixie darling
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 07:49 PM
Hey, please tell my lender that the salary I listed on my mortgage form has now been halved, retrospectively, with no warning.
....not to worry
....I'm an attorney at a TARP bank, I've never sold or dealt with a mortgage backed security ....but some how I'm responsible.
...I don't have a contract, but my pay level is based on salaries at NY law firms but the bank pays a base with a :"bonus" (deferred pay) the following year.
...I have over 20 years experience, but now I'm paid way less than a senior associate at a NYC firm. Wait a minute, those outside attorneys who worked on Mortgage backed securities aren't taxed at 90% (really 102% if you live in NYC) over $250K family income and surely they are more responsible than I? And why should my bonus/deferred pay be treated differently than my colleague who's wife doesn't earn income? We have the same job.
I can't wait to leave and work for an outside firm. My colleagues all feel the same. When we do work for the government owned banks, I'd like to charge base +90% - seems fair since they are entities with reputations for bailing on their contracts.
Good luck realtors getting any financial services employee mortgage application through any lenders!
Tomorrow, I'm calling verizon, at&t and my other bills where the execs make over $250K and letting them know that I will only be paying them 10% of the amount they were expecting having already provided the service.
I like this idea, have people work for me for a year, then adjust the payrate by a whopping 90%! Perhaps I should just pay it forward.
Who's next, mortgage brokers taxed at 90% on family earnings over $250K, realtors? Shore is a dark day for duel income families and anyone who went to college for a masters, MD or JD.
Remember: THE BEST LEGISLATION IS DREAMED UP IN A NIGHT AND PASSED IN A WEEK. It's the American way.
I'm still looking for politicians who've handed back their millions in contributions or skybox seats from TARP banks....not finding any yet.
Posted by Getreal
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 08:41 PM
It's a bonus. You get it when your company does well or hits their numbers, at least. You may have baked that into your lifestyle, but that doesn't change the fact that these kinds of pay structures are set up to avoid paying for non-performance; people, firm or otherwise. The bank didn't perform. End of story. Why is it that every other industry understands this but finance? You're all supposed to be good at math.
Posted by Eric
Sat Mar 21st, 2009 08:57 PM
Jency - I should have clarified. I'm talking about Manhattan, not Queens, Brooklyn or Long Island. It is much more expensive to live in Manhattan than anywhere comparable in SV or SF. The cost of rent/buy alone and food throws it over the top. Transportation is sort of unfair, because while we have better public transit here, a car is much more expensive in NY to the point that far fewer people do it. People get paid more in NY because it is more expensive to live here (in Manhattan) than anywhere else in the country (including northern CA). I don't think many people (except you) would question that. Hopefully, though, it's about to get a whole lot less expensive.
Posted by Jency
Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 12:04 AM
@trixie
Using your argument, I should be getting a bailout to cover my 401(k) losses, since "I've never sold or dealt with a mortgage-backed security" and all.
It's a bonus, not a salary. If your firm doesn't perform, you shouldn't get anything. That's the point of the structure. You probably chose to avoid law firm hours and a chance to make more more money sooner and without having to make partner. It's not equivalent. And, the thing is, you have no clients after all this time. Are you sure you can leap into a firm and garner the same as someone with your experience who does?
Not to trying to flame or anything, and I realize I've made some leaps here, but come on... If my company doesn't do well, I don't get a bonus; I get laid off or someone else does.
Posted by Bill
Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 11:05 AM
NO BONUSES FOR PEOPLE AT FIRMS THAT ACCEPTED A GOV'T BAILOUT.
It's that simple. Your firm lost billions? Yes? Your firm accepted fresh capital at absurdly advantageous prices? Well, let's admit then that your firm would not be OPEN tomorrow were it not for the gov't's misguided and mispriced help. Seriously, you really are lucky to have a job now if you work at C, BAC, MER, BSC, etc. So please understand that I don't want to pay you a bonus, nor do my friends and family.
It is indeed sad that so many bankers, lawyers, IT-folk, and S&T types ASSUMED that they'd recieve a bonus every year for the rest of their professional lives. Come now, does that make sense? Did you really make that assumption in your personal pro formas? It's that sort of extrapolation that got us into this mess, and it's that sort of extrapolation that keeps us here.
Here's the dirty secret no one wants to come out and say: the quants and the quants' managers knew the structured asset paper sold was absurdly mispriced. They all knew, too, that the price at which it was valued on bank balance sheets was way too high from the start. The reason it was valued at 120 when it was really worth just 100 (at issuance, mind you!) is that people were paid off that inflated valuation. So there was huge pressure to value garbage paper at highly inflated prices so people would get paid.
Now fast-forward to today. Those same structured bonds might in fact be valued at 80 on bank balance sheets. But guess what? They're worth 30. That's the problem. The market knows the value of this garbage and nobody wants to buy it because it's not worth what the banks are marking it at. It may look like the banks have written valuations down, but the fact of the matter is that the banks have taken mostly only the inflated initial mark out of the bonds.
So I understand the 'innocent' people at these banks are angry, they've just lost their bonuses. But really now. There's a good chance that you work at a firm that has cheated investors and clients for many years now. I know, I worked on the sell-side for many years, too, I've seen the games. And it is beyond distasteful. But if you hang around losers and work for losers you will end up paying the price. It's quite sad, indeed.
So what do you say to the 'innocents' who work for hedge funds that are now at the bottom of the ocean? It's sad, it's terrible, but they certainly don't get bonuses, either. And I'd argue that most hedge funds are infinitely more well-run than most banks. How can a bank CEO admit that the housing market is a house of cards but insist that "if the music is playing ya better be dancing"? Seriously, Chuck Prince admits it's a house of cards yet he continues to play the game? And now the people at C are demanding a bonus, claiming their firm is solvent (if not a money-maker)?
The joke is on everyone. The culture of entitlement fades quickly. Just wait. The collapse of this monstrous debt bubble is unstoppable. The cash flows are gone, the debt isn't servicable. So we watch as bank balance sheets melt. And understand that the emotional pain on the downside might be just as intense as the glee on the upside.
Posted by Bill
Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 04:06 PM
Bill: Amen.
Posted by Bama
Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 04:07 PM
Bill: Amen.
Posted by OT
Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 04:38 PM
Bill = Bama
Way to pat yourself on the back, dumb@ss.
Posted by Bill
Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 04:48 PM
OT:
Sorry bro, that's not me patting myself on my back. Though I of course agree with Bama.
By the way, OT, I gather you work for one of the TARP-taking firms. Good luck with that.
--Bill
Posted by Noah
Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 05:55 PM
they are two different ip addresses
Posted by OT
Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 08:56 PM
Wow... what are the odds, with posts within a minute of each other? Bill, my apologies, although I'm still confused as to why you would post the first "Amen" post. Is that also another Bill?? This is getting confusing.
Btw, didn't have a problem with your original post, just hate people that take advantage of the no login requirement to boost their original posting - this evidently does not apply to you, so again, my regrets.
Posted by Bama
Sun Mar 22nd, 2009 09:14 PM
I accidentally hit send on the message with bill's name before I realized I screwed up.
Bama.
Posted by Ed
Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 09:51 AM
I'm sick and tired of listening to all of this bellyachin' about, "woe is me, how can you raise a family in NYC on $250K, blah blah blah." Simple: MOVE. Yes, move to Queens, NJ, Rockland, etc. Go and join the hardworking people you have priced out with your outsized compensation and lifestyles. I hear $250K goes very far in Union.
Posted by Former Seller
Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 02:07 PM
Wow Noah, for the 6 months I've been following your blog, this topic must have set a record for # of follow-up posts in just a couple of days. A lot of crossfire too (which I chose to avoid stepping into myself).
I guess this claw-back legislation really fires people up across the board. I thought it was mostly an inconsequential emotional issue, but maybe I underestimated it...
Posted by Bill
Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 04:21 PM
OT, it's all good! Actually, I'm sorry for getting snarky on you. I thought about that after I posted my jerky comment, I wish I could take it back. Lesson learned on my part, my apologies again, shoulda taken your comment in stride. Take care.
Posted by Thisson
Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 07:38 PM
Trixie raises some good points, as to fairness, but please don't think the grass is greener in private law firm land.
Those people are getting fired left, right and center (10%+ of lawyers at big firms have been axed so far, and the bloodletting continues). So yeah, your comp is reduced, but you still have a job! People laid off from a big law firm likely have high expenses and very small odds of replacing their lost income. $200k+/yr --> $400/week is a rough transition.
To add insult to injury, lawfirms are now actually reducing associate salaries, while the demands of employers on those who actually remain employed increase.
Your points with respect to Congress are well taken. I think Congress shares a large portion of the blame in this fiasco. Your points about how people doing the same job are being treated differently under this rule are also valid.
Posted by pcmodem
Tue Mar 24th, 2009 04:20 PM
To the commenter above, referencing that this legislation (that probably won't ever be passed) would affect everyone, your wrong - it would only have affected those households who made 250k+, worked for a firm that took TARP money, and earned a bonus greater than 50k. Thats far from everybody. In fact, I'd say its pretty much limited to those people or their spouses who'd be out of work anyway if it weren't for government money.
If your company really didn't need the TARP/TALF money, no problem. I'm sure there will be a period of time, weeks, maybe months even, during which they can return the money in full, and you won't loose your bonus. You believe your CEO's when they say they really didn't need it, right?
To anyone who argues that these bonuses are a necessity, a right, justifiable, or even a necessary evil, I respectfully challenge your world-view. I present to you a snippet from Bloomberg, perspective from an out of work hedge fund Senior Analyst who obviously isn't the same kind of unemployed as the rest of the 8%
---
It’s tough to live in New York City on much less than $400,000 a year, Orringer says, especially if a family has two kids in private school, where tuition can exceed $25,000 a year.
“I look around at my neighbors, and I wonder, ‘How do they make it?’” she says. “We have savings, although if I remain unemployed for several years, we’ll have to dramatically change our lifestyle.”
---
Posted by RegularAnon
Wed Mar 25th, 2009 09:00 PM
PcModern,
I understand that people won't sympathize with those people who were earning high 6 or low 7 figures who lost their jobs -- but these "high" income earners are asked to help pay for the things many middle and lower income individuals benefit from - by paying higher taxes -- that go towards welfare, schools, defense, etc. But when that higher income earner falls on "hard" times , we should not feel sympathy for them?
As far as bonuses at AIG, i think there should be no steadfast rule. Although It would be an absolute mess if it were implemented on a case by case basis. Many of the employees who received bonuses likely worked in units that had nothing to do with the division(s) that caused AIG's demise. I can understand that nobody receive a bonus based on company performance -- b/c of course the company has collapsed. But if you have a star trader... who makes the company a ton of money ... and don't give him/her the bonus they deserve? Ultimately..the taxpayer will lose in this case -- b/c the income generating employee will leave.
Posted by Betty
Sat Apr 11th, 2009 03:35 AM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Betty
http://desktopmemory.info