EternalHoH -> RE: I was right! HAHAHAHAHA! (10/12/2010 11:57:14 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NewOCDaddy What you dont seem to understand is that the former group commands total compensation of double or triple their base salaries, but they but 1/2 to 2/3 of it at risk based on their performance. Their performance has direct impact on the bottom line of the company and are rewarded or punished commensurately. Under typical circumstances, yes. Under present day Wall Street circumstances, no. You are attempting to associate pay with corporate performance. Corporate performance for an investment bank should be based on being an investment bank for their clients, and profiting from such activities. Today, its all about proprietary trading. Its all about borrowing money and using it to execute bets on your own corporate behalf, not on the behalf of your clients. Its the difference between making an honest wage, and winning at the track. When you win at the track, it has nothing to do with the business principles that drive compensation based on performance. The two are completely detached. These people are borrowing money to place bets at the casino. How they split their gambling winnings has nothing to do with an individual putting their compensation at risk as part of a compensation process that involves being judged on how well they perform on behalf of their clients. And when the bank operating as the bookie that took all those bets goes bust, and cannot pay up, don't worry, the taxpayer will come to the rescue. The bankers have their payday based on a good day at the casino, and the taxpayer holds the "too big to fail" bag.
|
|
|
|