Thursday, December 18, 2008

Bonus Payments or Looting?

The NY Times has an article today that details some of the epic greed and excess that resulted in the stupefying bonuses paid to Wall Street employees in recent years. The facts will make your blood boil:

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.

[snip]
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.


Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism, however, believes The Times glossed the piece.
He argues that these investment bank executives were paying themselves more than their firms were worth and then defaulting on their obligations. One egregious example was Lehman:

Dick Fuld reportedly spends much of his days allegedly wondering why he didn't get a bailout. He should instead be thanking his lucky stars he is not in jail. Bankruptcy fraud is criminal, and fraudulent conveyance is subject to clawbacks. How could Lehman possibly have been producing financials that showed it had a positive net worth, yet have an over $100 billion hole in its balance sheet when it went under? No one has yet given an adequate answer on where the shortfalls were.


Yves calls on The Times to drop the euphemisms and tell it like it is:

It was looting [my emphasis], and it is high time the media starts describing it in those terms.


Here, here!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hi DWF, makes one wonder what kind trading profits those guys generated to justify those bonuses.