On Wall Street, Bonuses, Not Profits, Were Real

Search

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
why is nobody calling investment banks and wall street in general a ponzi scheme and throwing 1000s of people in jail

:think2:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

<cite> by Louise Story
Thursday, December 18, 2008</cite>
provided by

"As a result of the extraordinary growth at Merrill during my tenure as C.E.O., the board saw fit to increase my compensation each year."
-- E. Stanley O'Neal, the former chief executive of Merrill Lynch, March 2008


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 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," said Lucian A. Bebchuk, a professor at Harvard Law School and an expert on compensation. "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," said Brian Lin, a former mortgage trader at Merrill Lynch.


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.


A Bonus Bonanza

For Wall Street, much of this decade represented a new Gilded Age. Salaries were merely play money -- a pittance compared to bonuses. Bonus season became an annual celebration of the riches to be had in the markets. That was especially so in the New York area, where nearly $1 out of every $4 that companies paid employees last year went to someone in the financial industry. Bankers celebrated with five-figure dinners, vied to outspend each other at charity auctions and spent their newfound fortunes on new homes, cars and art.


The bonanza redefined success for an entire generation. Graduates of top universities sought their fortunes in banking, rather than in careers like medicine, engineering or teaching. Wall Street worked its rookies hard, but it held out the promise of rich rewards. In college dorms, tales of 30-year-olds pulling down $5 million a year were legion.


While top executives received the biggest bonuses, what is striking is how many employees throughout the ranks took home large paychecks. On Wall Street, the first goal was to make "a buck" -- a million dollars. More than 100 people in Merrill's bond unit alone broke the million-dollar mark in 2006. Goldman Sachs paid more than $20 million apiece to more than 50 people that year, according to a person familiar with the matter. Goldman declined to comment.


Pay was tied to profit, and profit to the easy, borrowed money that could be invested in markets like mortgage securities. As the financial industry's role in the economy grew, workers' pay ballooned, leaping sixfold since 1975, nearly twice as much as the increase in pay for the average American worker.


"The financial services industry was in a bubble," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "The industry got a bigger share of the economic pie."


A Money Machine

Dow Kim stepped into this milieu in the mid-1980s, fresh from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Born in Seoul and raised there and in Singapore, Mr. Kim moved to the United States at 16 to attend Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass. A quiet workaholic in an industry of workaholics, he seemed to rise through the ranks by sheer will. After a stint trading bonds in Tokyo, he moved to New York to oversee Merrill's fixed-income business in 2001. Two years later, he became co-president.
Even as tremors began to reverberate through the housing market and his own company, Mr. Kim exuded optimism.


After several of his key deputies left the firm in the summer of 2006, he appointed a former colleague from Asia, Osman Semerci, as his deputy, and beneath Mr. Semerci he installed Dale M. Lattanzio and Douglas J. Mallach. Mr. Lattanzio promptly purchased a $5 million home, as well as oceanfront property in Mantoloking, a wealthy enclave in New Jersey, according to county records.


Merrill and the executives in this article declined to comment or say whether they would return past bonuses. Mr. Mallach did not return telephone calls.


Mr. Semerci, Mr. Lattanzio and Mr. Mallach joined Mr. Kim as Merrill entered a new phase in its mortgage buildup. That September, the bank spent $1.3 billion to buy the First Franklin Financial Corporation, a mortgage lender in California, in part so it could bundle its mortgages into lucrative bonds.
Yet Mr. Kim was growing restless. That same month, he told E. Stanley O'Neal, Merrill's chief executive, that he was considering starting his own hedge fund. His traders were stunned. But Mr. O'Neal persuaded Mr. Kim to stay, assuring him that the future was bright for Merrill's mortgage business, and, by extension, for Mr. Kim.


Mr. Kim stepped to the lectern on the bond trading floor and told his anxious traders that he was not going anywhere, and that business was looking up, according to four former employees who were there. The traders erupted in applause.


"No one wanted to stop this thing," said former mortgage analyst at Merrill.



"It was a machine, and we all knew it was going to be a very, very good year."


Merrill Lynch celebrated its success even before the year was over. In November, the company hosted a three-day golf tournament at Pebble Beach, Calif.


A Bonus Bonanza

For Wall Street, much of this decade represented a new Gilded Age. Salaries were merely play money -- a pittance compared to bonuses. Bonus season became an annual celebration of the riches to be had in the markets. That was especially so in the New York area, where nearly $1 out of every $4 that companies paid employees last year went to someone in the financial industry. Bankers celebrated with five-figure dinners, vied to outspend each other at charity auctions and spent their newfound fortunes on new homes, cars and art.


The bonanza redefined success for an entire generation. Graduates of top universities sought their fortunes in banking, rather than in careers like medicine, engineering or teaching. Wall Street worked its rookies hard, but it held out the promise of rich rewards. In college dorms, tales of 30-year-olds pulling down $5 million a year were legion.


While top executives received the biggest bonuses, what is striking is how many employees throughout the ranks took home large paychecks. On Wall Street, the first goal was to make "a buck" -- a million dollars. More than 100 people in Merrill's bond unit alone broke the million-dollar mark in 2006. Goldman Sachs paid more than $20 million apiece to more than 50 people that year, according to a person familiar with the matter. Goldman declined to comment.


Pay was tied to profit, and profit to the easy, borrowed money that could be invested in markets like mortgage securities. As the financial industry's role in the economy grew, workers' pay ballooned, leaping sixfold since 1975, nearly twice as much as the increase in pay for the average American worker.


"The financial services industry was in a bubble," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "The industry got a bigger share of the economic pie."


A Money Machine

Dow Kim stepped into this milieu in the mid-1980s, fresh from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Born in Seoul and raised there and in Singapore, Mr. Kim moved to the United States at 16 to attend Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass. A quiet workaholic in an industry of workaholics, he seemed to rise through the ranks by sheer will. After a stint trading bonds in Tokyo, he moved to New York to oversee Merrill's fixed-income business in 2001. Two years later, he became co-president.
Even as tremors began to reverberate through the housing market and his own company, Mr. Kim exuded optimism.


After several of his key deputies left the firm in the summer of 2006, he appointed a former colleague from Asia, Osman Semerci, as his deputy, and beneath Mr. Semerci he installed Dale M. Lattanzio and Douglas J. Mallach. Mr. Lattanzio promptly purchased a $5 million home, as well as oceanfront property in Mantoloking, a wealthy enclave in New Jersey, according to county records.


Merrill and the executives in this article declined to comment or say whether they would return past bonuses. Mr. Mallach did not return telephone calls.


Mr. Semerci, Mr. Lattanzio and Mr. Mallach joined Mr. Kim as Merrill entered a new phase in its mortgage buildup. That September, the bank spent $1.3 billion to buy the First Franklin Financial Corporation, a mortgage lender in California, in part so it could bundle its mortgages into lucrative bonds.
Yet Mr. Kim was growing restless. That same month, he told E. Stanley O'Neal, Merrill's chief executive, that he was considering starting his own hedge fund. His traders were stunned. But Mr. O'Neal persuaded Mr. Kim to stay, assuring him that the future was bright for Merrill's mortgage business, and, by extension, for Mr. Kim.


Mr. Kim stepped to the lectern on the bond trading floor and told his anxious traders that he was not going anywhere, and that business was looking up, according to four former employees who were there. The traders erupted in applause.


"No one wanted to stop this thing," said former mortgage analyst at Merrill.



"It was a machine, and we all knew it was going to be a very, very good year."


Merrill Lynch celebrated its success even before the year was over. In November, the company hosted a three-day golf tournament at Pebble Beach, Calif.


Mr. Kim, an avid golfer, played alongside William H. Gross, a founder of Pimco, the big bond house; and Ralph R. Cioffi, who oversaw two Bear Stearns hedge funds whose subsequent collapse in 2007 would send shock waves through the financial world.


"There didn't seem to be an end in sight," said a person who attended the tournament.


Back in New York, Mr. Kim's team was eagerly bundling risky home mortgages into bonds. One of the last deals they put together that year was called "Costa Bella," or beautiful coast -- a name that recalls Pebble Beach. The $500 million bundle of loans, a type of investment known as a collateralized debt obligation, was managed by Mr. Gross's Pimco.


Merrill Lynch collected about $5 million in fees for concocting Costa Bella, which included mortgages originated by First Franklin.


But Costa Bella, like so many other C.D.O.'s, was filled with loans that borrowers could not repay. Initially part of it was rated AAA, but Costa Bella is now deeply troubled. The losses on the investment far exceed the money Merrill collected for putting the deal together.

So Much for So Few

By the time Costa Bella ran into trouble, the Merrill bankers who had devised it had collected their bonuses for 2006. Mr. Kim's fixed-income unit generated more than half of Merrill's revenue that year, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter. As a reward, Mr. O'Neal and Mr. Kim paid nearly a third of Merrill's $5 billion to $6 billion bonus pool to the 2,000 professionals in the division.

Mr. O'Neal himself was paid $46 million, according to Equilar, an executive compensation research firm and data provider in California. Mr. Kim received $35 million. About 57 percent of their pay was in stock, which would lose much of its value over the next two years, but even the cash portions of their bonus were generous: $18.5 million for Mr. O'Neal, and $14.5 million for Mr. Kim, according to Equilar.


Mr. Kim and his deputies were given wide discretion about how to dole out their pot of money. Mr. Semerci was among the highest earners in 2006, at more than $20 million. Below him, Mr. Mallach and Mr. Lattanzio each earned more than $10 million. They were among just over 100 people who accounted for some $500 million of the pool, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.


After that blowout, Merrill pushed even deeper into the mortgage business, despite growing signs that the housing bubble was starting to burst. That decision proved disastrous. As the problems in the subprime mortgage market exploded into a full-blown crisis, the value of Merrill's investments plummeted. The firm has since written down its investments by more than $54 billion, selling some of them for pennies on the dollar.


Mr. Lin, the former Merrill trader, arrived late to the party. He was one of the last people hired onto Merrill's mortgage desk, in the summer of 2007. Even then, Merrill guaranteed Mr. Lin a bonus if he joined the firm. Mr. Lin would not disclose his bonus, but such payouts were often in the seven figures.


Mr. Lin said he quickly noticed that traders across Wall Street were reluctant to admit what now seems so obvious: Their mortgage investments were worth far less than they had thought.


"It's always human nature," said Mr. Lin, who lost his job at Merrill last summer and now works at RRMS Advisors, a consulting firm that advises investors in troubled mortgage investments. "You want to pull for the market to do well because you're vested."


But critics question why Wall Street embraced the risky deals even as the housing and mortgage markets began to weaken.


"What happened to their investments was of no interest to them, because they would already be paid," said Paul Hodgson, senior research associate at the Corporate Library, a shareholder activist group. Some Wall Street executives argue that paying a larger portion of bonuses in the form of stock, rather than in cash, might keep employees from making short-sighted decision. But Mr. Hodgson contended that would not go far enough, in part because the cash rewards alone were so high. Mr. Kim, for example, was paid a total of $116.6 million in cash and stock from 2001 to 2007. Of that, $55 million was in cash, according to Equilar.


Leaving the Scene

As the damage at Merrill became clear in 2007, Mr. Kim, his deputies and finally Mr. O'Neal left the firm. Mr. Kim opened a hedge fund, but it quickly closed. Mr. Semerci and Mr. Lattanzio landed at a hedge fund in London.
All three departed without collecting bonuses in 2007. Mr. O'Neal, however, got even richer by leaving Merrill Lynch. He was awarded an exit package worth $161 million.


Clawing back the 2006 bonuses at Merrill would not come close to making up for the company's losses, which exceed all the profits that the firm earned over the previous 20 years. This fall, the once-proud firm was sold to Bank of America, ending its 94-year history as an independent firm.
Mr. Bebchuk of Harvard Law School said investment banks like Merrill were brought to their knees because their employees chased after the rich rewards that executives promised them.


"They were trying to get as much of this or that paper, they were doing it with excitement and vigor, and that was because they knew they would be making huge amounts of money by the end of the year," he said.
 

Defender of the Faith
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
5,680
Tokens
Yeah, but those lazy UAW SOBs are the ones really to blame, blah, blah, blah. . .
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
well they partially to blame as far the american auto demise too but on scale of its impact on the american economy in general its not that big

bottom line though as far as auto goes

the above as far as banks go is what delivered the KO punch to the auto industry they were bound for this fate at some point

the banks fucking the whole economy up just sped up the process

the auto execs were drinking the easy credit kool aid too (which was only made available by the fed, fiat money, and the banksters) thinking that the SUV craze, 0% down, people tapping their home equity to buy cars etc....would last forever which it obviously wasn't going to

i agree its all interconnected and the root of the problem is at the top of the pyramid scheme as far as the federal reserve, fiat money, and banks creating all these schemes and such

that said at the same time the UAW have put the auto companies in an uncompetitive position when a viscous downturn comes

unions and big government getting involved in the marketplace doesn't help either

long term free markets with sound money (in which the fed and banks are restrained in the amount of credit and ponzi schemes) is the solution to our problems

but our likely reaction will be more regulation and more government intervention in the marketplace leading to more problems and more artificial bubble creation down the road
 

I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,544
Tokens
50 people in G-S made $20M in '06? who do they think they are, the NBA?
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
maybe we can bail out pro sports next :missingte

every major sport gonna lose some teams and undergo cost cutting/job slashing

the yankees giving 160 mil to a fatass (CC) as we enter a depression makes tizzer bust out loud laughing
 

Banned
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
3,981
Tokens
In Madoff we trust
Peter Schiff

As the multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Wall Street insider Bernard Madoff unravels in the media spotlight, the nation is being presented with a rare opportunity to understand the true nature of many of our most cherished financial structures. Hopefully we have the wisdom to connect the dots.

Although the $50 billion loss engineered by Madoff is truly a staggering accomplishment (and was done using old-fashioned fraud rather than the mathematical wizardry that has characterized Wall Street’s recent larcenies) the size of the scheme pales in comparison to the multi-trillion dollar Ponzi structures run by the United States government. In fact, rather than looking to jail Madoff, President-elect Obama should consider making him our new Treasury secretary. If not that, at least make him the czar of something!

Madoff’s inspiration came from Charles Ponzi, the Italian-born American immigrant who promoted an investment plan in the early 1900s’ that traded postal coupons. Rather than paying investors from legitimate investment returns, Ponzi hit upon the innovative idea of paying out early investors with money collected from new investors. By creating an illusion of success, interest in his investment plan ballooned. Over time the schemes have become known by many other names, such as chain letters or pyramid schemes. They are united by the fact that they always fail in the end.

When the influx of new investors inevitably slows to the point where distributions to current investors can no longer be maintained, investors look to withdraw funds. When this happens, the entire structure falls apart. The profits received by those who “invested” early as well so any funds skimmed off by the promoter, are offset by all the losses of those who came late to the party.

To a large extent, the same concept has driven the major asset bubbles of the last decade. Given the ridiculously high valuations that were assigned to tech stocks and real estate during their respective booms, the only way the bubbles could be perpetuated was if newer “investors” could be found to pay even more outrageous prices (the greater fool). But when these new buyers balked, the whole structure crumbled. Although there was no Ponzi or Madoff to orchestrate these manias, the entire financial and economic apparatus of the country had successfully convinced the public that “investments” in tech stocks and condominiums were bullet proof and that the supply of new buyers was endless.

Unfortunately, the Ponzi economy doesn’t stop there. A chain letter is no more viable when run by governments than when run by private citizens. However, government orchestrated pyramids have the advantage of required participation. As a result, they can maintain the illusion of viability for several generations. But the longer such schemes operate the larger will be the losses when they ultimately collapse.

The Social Security Administration runs its “trust funds” with precisely the same methods used by Madoff and Ponzi. As money is collected by from current workers, the funds are then dispersed to those already receiving benefits. None of the funds collected are actually invested, so no investment returns are ever generated. Those currently paying into the system are expected to receive their returns based on the “contribution” made by future workers. This is the classic definition of a Ponzi scheme. The only difference is that Ponzi didn’t own a printing press.

The United States Government runs its own balance sheet based on the Ponzi principal as well. Our national debt always grows and never shrinks. As existing debt matures, proceeds are repaid by issuing new debt. Interest payments on existing debt are also made by selling new debt to investors. The whole scheme depends on an ever growing supply of new lenders, or the willingness of existing lenders, to continue to roll over maturing notes. Of course, as was the case with Madoff, if enough of our creditors want their money back, the music stops playing.

In Madoff’s case, the rug pulling was provided by the huge financial losses suffered by some of his clients in other non-Madoff investments. When enough of these clients looked to sell some of their apparently well-performing Madoff assets to help offset such losses, the scam collapsed. The same thing could befall the United States Government. Now that China and our other creditors are looking to spend some of their U.S. Treasury holdings to stimulate their own economies, look for a similar outcome with even more dire implications.

The main difference is that while Madoff took elaborate steps to conceal his scheme, the U.S. government operates in broad daylight. It truly is amazing how faith in government is so pervasive that many can believe that politicians will succeed where private individuals fail, and that governments are somehow immune to the economic laws that govern the rest of society. Like those unfortunate to have been duped by Madoff and Ponzi, the world is in for a rude awakening.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
schiff spot on with that rant

and if the ponzi scheme collapses fully

meaning faith in fiat, the banking system, government securities/bonds, and government in general is completely lost

that's where his "hyperinflation" comes into play

i think we have years till that is a potential worry but it could come....
 

Banned
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
3,981
Tokens
Bernanke cranking up the printing presses and is just gonna try to print his way out of this economic mess.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
i understand but all the printing press money is just going towards servicing deflationary debt

we throwing 700 billion at banks but banks aren't lending, banks are slashing jobs like mad, and banks will continue to take losses for the forseeable future

none of it is getting into the average joe's hands he will continue to lose jobs and have less money to spend

and people with money for now are throwing their fiat they have into government securities in hoards

bonds are shooting the moon

and government borrowing is getting dirt cheap for obama yo mama's new deal

deflation is the name of the game for now

but longer term if the have nots revolt and say fuck this shit i'm not going along with my "required participation" (paying taxes, paying social security, medicare, and allowing government to use taxpayer money to fund bailouts of the big guys) and a 2nd american revolution evolves longer term

that's where the system could "hyperinflate" in that fiat dollars becomes worthless
 

Banned
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
3,981
Tokens
They are trying to prop up an economy that needs to heal itself. They are destroying this country with their stimulus and their bailouts. Nobody is standing up to this bullshit. The dollar is gonna be worthless.
 

Banned
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
3,981
Tokens
Prices may be dropping, but deflation is contraction of the money supply. That is not happening

We are gonna have an inflation boom, followed by an hyper inflation collapse.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
why is a gallon of gas 1.60 fiat dollars now? when it was 4 fiat dollars 6 months ago?

my definition of deflation = fall in prices of goods domestically priced in local fiat dollars regardless of what country you live in

as for money supply

money supply in the hands of the consumer which all inflationary bubbles originate from is dropping

he's got less money in his hands via income (losing jobs) via debt (banks not lending, home prices collapsing, and he don't want debt right now cause he's not sure he's gonna have a job tomorrow to pay it off) via stocks (peoples retirement savings and 401ks are deflating)

the hyperinflation boom could come no doubt

but for now deflation the name of the game
 

Banned
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
3,981
Tokens
Bottom line this country is fucked. We are a socialist country now. Capitalism is done. Govt. is taking over indutry, they are running the economy. They will decide what is produced and who produces it. This whole country is gonna be one big giant post office.
 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
i'm with ya on that

as long as americans sit idly and continue to play along with the left/right circus show when they both on the same side of more government and allow politicians and banks and fed to do whatever they please at the expense of us the working taxpayer we will continue to move down the path of commufascism

we are endentured servants to their fiat ponzi scheme willingly handing over the fruits of our labors to line the pockets of crooks

until/unless the masses wake up and revolt its only gonna get worse
 

I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,544
Tokens
as long as americans sit idly and continue to play along with the left/right circus show when they both on the same side of more government and allow politicians and banks and fed to do whatever they please at the expense of us the working taxpayer we will continue to move down the path of commufascism
could not have said it better myself yet the punters, funks, 3peeters, ron paul haters, and gtc08's just don't understand what's really happening. I can understand the juveniles not getting it but for old man punter it is inexcusable.

i look around right now and I seriously cannot believe wtf is happening. Actions taken in the past 6 months were unfathomable a year ago yet the gov't tells us it needed to be done and 75% of America say "oh, ok...at least we have the savior ready to take over". It actually sickens me that people can be so naive and blind and so unwilling to pull back the layers of the lies they are being fed.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,946
Messages
13,575,480
Members
100,886
Latest member
ranajeet
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com