The Flawed Compensation System in Investment Banking

Here's a good article from the prolific Edward Harrison that explains the differences between conventional corporations (including commercial banks) and the big Wall Street firms relative to how people are compensated and who's really calling the shots on risky decisions. In the Wall Street firms (Goldman Sachs, and the now-departed Lehman and Bear Stearns), the top execs are often clueless about the risks their firms are taking (which is a major problem, of course), and you have much lower level people pulling off hugely risky deals. If they win, their payouts are huge. If they fail, they get fired, but just move down the street to another firm. This is why we can't give the same protections to Wall Street that we give to commercial banks. They should be allowed to take risks, but not with government backing. That's what the proposed Volcker rules are all about.

From Mr. Harrison's article:

Corporate hierarchies

In a normal corporate environment, there is a strict hierarchy in which those at the top earn more than those at the bottom. In order to rise to the top (and earn the salary and huge bonus – I might add), one needs to be considered successful. And that means putting in years of effort for which one receives performance reviews.

If you do well on these reviews, you might even receive accolades, awards and so on – the point being you are a rising star with talent. So you get promoted. “The way you’re going, you might even rise to CEO one day!” That’s the kind of praise you might hear. So the whole hierarchical apparatus is designed to align high achievement with other external signs of success: good evaluations, promotions, more money, more responsibility, more underlings, larger budgets, awards, and accolades and so on. All you need to do is look at an org chart and you get a pretty good sense of who’s supposed to be the stars. And by the way, this is how it works in commercial banking as well.

Investment banking hierarchies

But, that’s not how it works in investment banking at all. When one deal or a series of trades can mean billions in profit, even a relatively junior person can have influence on the bottom line far beyond what her title suggests. This is certainly true in the advisory business, but it is even more true in trading – especially proprietary trading, a major reason that proprietary trading is inherently risky and would be restricted under the Volcker Rule. By the way, this is also a major reason that investment banks that are public companies and not partnerships are risky companies with notoriously poor managers.

A slovenly 32-year old junior trader with terrible social skills, zero management ability and no one reporting to him can make millions of dollars a year. He’s the guy you read about in the newspaper making three times the CEO’s salary. He’s the guy that all the other firms are trying to poach. And he’s the guy that used to be referred to admiringly as a “big swinging dick.” You don’t see that at Acme Incorporated. That’s what I mean when I say it’s all about the money. You learn very quickly in investment banking that status is not all about the titles, it’s more about the money.

Read any account from investment banking like Predator’s Ball or Liar’s Poker you will quickly notice that even the higher level guys are driven to earn a lot of money, not only for the money itself but for what that money says about their status and value relative to their peers.

You can read his full article on Seeking Alpha here.

Conservatives targeting their fringe

On the heels of the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts, it looks like Republicans are finally learning that they don't need to kowtow to the far right. I wrote about the need for this back in October.

From the Politico article:

After months of struggling to harness the energy of newly engaged tea party activists, the conservative establishment — with critical midterm congressional elections on the horizon — is taking aim for the first time at the movement’s extremist elements.

The move has been cast by some conservatives as a modern version of the marginalization of the far-right, anti-communist John Birch Society during the reorganization of the conservative movement spearheaded by William F. Buckley Jr. in the 1960s and 1970s.

“A similar effort will be required today of conservative political and intellectual leaders,” former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote in his column in The Washington Post. “It will not be easy. Sometimes it takes courage to stand before a large crowd and proclaim that two plus two equals four.”

Read the full article on Politico here.

Capitalism, The System of

Given that I call myself The Raging Capitalist, I can't miss an opportunity to provide a good example of what the capitalist spirit is really all about. Such is provided in the linked article by David Brooks, particularly in his discussion of Lincoln and Hamilton. Brooks writes:

They rejected the zero-sum mentality that is at the heart of populism, the belief that economics is a struggle over finite spoils. Instead, they believed in a united national economy — one interlocking system of labor, trade and investment.

In their view, government’s role was not to side with one faction or to wage class war. It was to rouse the energy and industry of people at all levels. It was to enhance competition and make it fair — to make sure that no group, high or low, is able to erect barriers that would deprive Americans of an open field and a fair chance. Theirs was a philosophy that celebrated development, mobility and work, wherever those things might be generated.

Brooks' concern is that populist rage over abuse of the financial system will ultimately lead to the suppression of the capitalist ideals that have been so fundamental to our prosperity as a nation. His concern is valid, and the public's rage needs to be properly addressed, and without focusing that rage on a condemnation of capitalism itself.

Capitalists in no way want to turn a blind eye to those who have corrupted and co-opted our financial system. True capitalists aren't about gaming the system, or buying political influence, or hoodwinking the masses. They believe in the rule of law, creating open and fair playing fields, and allowing funds to easily flow between investors and entrepreneurs. Therefore, it would be high on the typical capitalist's agenda to want to dispense justice to those who have abused the financial system. However, those efforts need to be intelligently targeted and the penalties should be in proportion to the crimes (see my post on Obama's financial crisis fee). Similarly, we must enhance regulation, but we must take care to not strangle the system. We must ensure that risks taken with capital are in-line with investors' intentions, but capital must be allowed to flow freely. We must give the public free and fair access to the resources of the financial system, but we must not do it in such a way that checks and balances are ignored and unintended consequences result.

Importantly, we must remember that capitalism is a system. It has no political or social agenda. It doesn't think, or feel, or have opinions -- no different from the plumbing in your house. Attempts to weave the social agenda into capitalism (e.g., to make housing "affordable") have always failed, as they interfere with the "laws of nature" that apply to capitalism, such as having to live with the risks that you create. It is implicit in the capitalist system that its "users" -- the public -- can decide for themselves how hard they want to work, and how much risk they want to take. Some will succeed, and some will fail. Like Mother Nature herself, capitalism turns a blind eye to personal tragedy and hardship. Some will go out on a limb and run their own businesses, and others will choose to become human resources in those businesses. Capitalism makes no value judgments. Businesses generate profits, and their owners evolve into investors who bankroll the next generation of entrepreneurs. That's the cycle. That's how the system works. For all its harsh realities, capitalism is simple, self-correcting (when not interfered with), elegantly pure, and time-tested. We need to protect it with everything we've got.

Obama's Financial Crisis Fee -- sounds SO good, but oh, SO wrong

President Obama announced plans today to levy a “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee” on the nation’s largest banks — those with more than $50 billion in assets. Basically, it will be computed as .15% (i.e., 15/100ths of 1%) of the banks’ liabilities, excluding deposits covered by FDIC insurance (because a separate fee is assessed on them).

To a revenge-starved public, this may sound SO right and be SO overdue, but it is SO wrong. Once again, Obama has proposed a solution — as he did with health care reform — that is so lacking in nuance that it is clear that he doesn’t truly understand the problem. Either that, or it’s simply more evidence that he’s in Goldman Sachs’ hip pocket.

So, what’s wrong with this solution? Answer: it penalizes conservative, well run institutions, and once again, lets those who are the real troublemakers off the hook. The troublemakers that are left alive, that is. Keep in mind that most of the institutions that caused the crisis are now out of business or were merged into more responsible firms and are now under new management. By far, the biggest culprit still standing — and thriving, as no financial reforms have yet been implemented — is Goldman Sachs.

Although Obama and the media refer to “banks” as a homogeneous group, it is important to separate routine commercial and consumer lenders from super-large “money center banks” (e.g., Citibank, BofA, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase) and Wall Street “investment banks,” the latter of which (e.g., Goldman Sachs) were not actually banks at all until the financial bailout. Although they’re called investment banks, they never had bank charters, weren’t regulated as banks, and didn’t have FDIC-insured deposits until Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson allowed them to convert into chartered banks in order for them to qualify for TARP bailout funds. It was a slight of hand to do a solid for his friends on Wall Street, plain and simple. The investment banks are the firms that engage in the most risky trading and derivatives activities, and such activities constitute a huge percentage of their overall businesses. Money center banks also engage in risky investment banking activities — “thanks” (I say facetiously) to the Clinton administration’s successful efforts to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act — but because they are so large and diversified in their activities, such risky activities are a much smaller percentage of their overall businesses. Even among the money center banks, however, some were much less careful than others in managing their risks: Citibank was perhaps the worst, and JP Morgan Chase seems to have been the best. Indeed, despite having a diversified portfolio of low-risk businesses, Citibank was nonetheless almost brought down by its relatively few higher risk businesses. (You remember the old saying about one bad apple, right?) Long story short, banks are very different from one another, and they need to be penalized based on the risks they take, not how big they are.

To illustrate the problem, I downloaded the September 30, 2009 financial statements for Goldman Sachs and a pretty “plain vanilla” large bank, U.S. Bancorp, from the Federal Reserve’s website. The financial statements show how much of the banks’ revenues come from routine banking activities versus high-risk trading operations, which are the “casino” activities that got us into so much trouble. Goldman’s assets as of September 30 were about 3.3 times greater than U.S. Bancorp’s, so I'll need to make some adjustments in my math for that. For the first 9 months of 2009, Goldman generated $28.3 billion of trading revenues and interest on trading assets. Essentially, rolling the dice, albeit, in a casino that they seem to have pretty much rigged most of the time, except for when things go terribly wrong. In comparison, U.S. Bancorp generated a paltry $125 million from trading. This is a staggering differential. Adjusting for the difference in the sizes of the two firms, for every dollar of assets deployed in their businesses, Goldman was conducting about 68 TIMES more casino activity. This helps put the difference in the nature of these two banks into some perspective. Relatively speaking, one is like a plodding old electric utility, whereas the other is a powder keg waiting to explode if any of its risk assumptions prove to be faulty, which is exactly what happened in 2008.

Recall, however, that Obama’s proposed fee will be based on liabilities exclusive of FDIC deposits. Granted, that helps equalize things just a bit, in that such deposits make up a much larger percentage of U.S. Bancorp’s liabilities. In other words, it will get a much larger exclusion from the fee than Goldman precisely because it is a more conservative institution, which is exactly what we want. Even so, however, when looking at casino activities for every dollar of liabilities to be taxed, Goldman is still conducting 25 TIMES more casino activity than U.S. Bancorp. Yet, they will both pay exactly the same fee on each dollar of assessed liability. Not exactly fair, is it? Relative to what it makes on high-risk activities, the fee/tax Goldman will pay will be insignificant.

Granted, I’m a financial professional, but it took me all of about 15 minutes to do this work. Importantly, though, I took the time to validate what I suspected intuitively. As I said in my second paragraph, solutions can sometimes seem so obvious and so clear, and yet be entirely wrong. This is an obvious trap to anyone who has ever done any serious analytical work, so trained professionals are always on the lookout for the biggest booby trap of all: things you think you know, but really don’t. That’s why solutions should be based on real analysis, conducted by bona fide professionals who know how to maintain their objectivity. As I have stated in previous articles, important decisions should not be based on hearsay, anecdotal evidence, or preconceived notions. Popular, but erroneous, decisions may sound good, but they don’t solve anything, they’re often unfair, and they often encourage the exact opposite behaviors of those we really want.

I know I sound like a broken record, but we simply need to demand a higher quality of work from our government.

Big surprise: Geithner lines Wall Street's pockets again

Well, speak of the devil (in reference to my previous post), Tim Geithner comes through again... for Wall Street, not the American people.

Once again, Bill Black provides a cogent narrative of the latest shenanigans. Is Geithner just the most incompetent boob to ever hold an office, or is he the devil incarnate? I'd love to say that time will tell, but somehow I think this guy will always be two steps ahead of the law. No one in Washington seems to be interested in holding him accountable.

Frontline's "The Warning" explains the roots of the financial crisis

PBS's brilliant Frontline really needs to be commended for its work in exposing the causes of the financial crisis. In a time when we can question the motivations of many in the news media, Frontline is not pulling any punches and is clearly party-neutral with respect to identifying the culprits in this calamity.

This week's program, "The Warning," chronicles the efforts of Brooksley Born, then the new head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), to gain approval in the late 1990s to regulate credit default swaps and other types of complex derivatives that were largely responsible for the recent financial system meltdown. Her efforts were thwarted, however, due to heavy opposition from Clinton's triad of senior financial advisors: Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, his Deputy Secretary, Larry Summers, and Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan.

Thanks to documentaries such this, it becomes painfully clearer all the time that we simply don't learn from our mistakes. Even though Ms. Born's concerns were proven to be valid during the very time that Congress was holding hearings on her powers -- thanks to the trillion-dollar meltdown of Long-Term Capital Management, the then-darling of the hedge fund industry -- the CFTC's regulatory authority was never expanded, and now we all know the consequences. Making matters worse, Obama has put virtually the same team that opposed Ms. Born into powerful positions in his own administration. Is there any wonder why more than a year has passed since the meltdown and no financial reforms have been implemented?

Here's a little additional background to keep in mind as you watch the episode:

1. Prior to becoming Sec'y of the Treasury, Robert Rubin was the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Hank Paulson, Bush's last Treasury Secretary, was also the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Goldman's power and influence in Washington are extensive! Predictably, Goldman Sachs was the largest contributor to the Obama campaign, and continues to be the most blatantly opportunistic firm on Wall Street with respect to taking advantage of the absence of regulatory reform.
2. Two of Rubin's disciples, Tim Geithner and Gary Gensler (also ex-Goldman), are now, respectively, Secretary of the Treasury and head of the CFTC, which, again, is the agency that should be regulating derivatives, but isn't.
3. Rubin moved on from the Treasury to Citigroup, which was one of the sickest of the sick in the meltdown, with the result being the U.S. government supplying $100 billion in emergency aid and taking a 34% equity stake.
4. Following Clinton's final term, Summers moved on to the presidency of Harvard, where he was embroiled in one controversy after another. He was ultimately ousted by the faculty through a vote of no confidence. Too bad they didn't act sooner, though, as Summers' recommendations regarding investments in derivatives cost the Harvard endowment over $1 billion.
5. Summers made over $5 million last year from Wall Street connections, supposedly for doing speaking engagements and consulting approximately one day a week. He is now Obama's senior financial advisor, and frequent mouthpiece on financial policy. (Follow my "Larry Summers" link on the right to read some of my additional thoughts about Summers).
6. Greenspan ultimately retired, with his reputation now in tatters. He admitted this year before Congress that many of his most fundamental beliefs concerning regulation and the self-correcting powers of the markets, upon which his key decisions as Fed chief were based, were simply wrong.
   

Watch "The Warning" and draw your own conclusions. I'm sure you can probably guess, however, how I feel about our current president surrounding himself with a cast of characters who were so toxic to our way of life, and who seem to be in no particular hurry to put fixes in place.

Also outstanding is this video timelime of the events that set the stage for the financial crisis. Again, big kudos to Frontline.

Click here for Frontline's timeline.

It's About Principles: What the Republican Party Must Do

The following are the stated principles of the Republican Party:

• The Republican Party, like our nation's founders, believes that government must be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of individuals.
• The Republican Party supports low taxes because individuals know best how to make their own economic and charitable choices.
• The Republican Party is supportive of logical business regulations that encourage entrepreneurs to start more businesses so more individuals can enjoy the satisfaction and fruits of self-made success.
• The Republican Party is committed to preserving our national strength while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

I believe strongly in all of these principles, and yet, I have never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. (I haven’t always voted for the Democrat either, instead choosing to let my abstention speak for itself.) One would think that I would be easy game for the GOP, so why haven’t they been able to win me over? It’s not because their core principles are not brilliantly clear, sensible and powerful. Rather, it’s because Republicans never actually make their core principles the foundation of their platform, nor are they ever even able to achieve a unified vision of their platform across the various factions within their party.

The trouble with Republicans is not their passion for their core principles. It’s that they are usually even more passionate as individuals about something else, and they don’t know where to draw the line between beliefs about governance and beliefs about deeply personal life choices. What is especially unsavory to independent moderates about the conflation of these beliefs is that the personal beliefs that are most loudly proclaimed are often based on some form of intolerance, and they reek of hypocrisy in that they typically conflict with the core principles’ themes of individual responsibility, personal freedom, and limited government. Intolerance and hypocrisy also set you up to be a bad joke, as depicted in this video:





Rather than painting a clear picture of how legislation based on their core principles would create a better America, Republicans allow themselves to become fractured over issues concerning, for example, religion, abortion, gay rights, and in the case of Mitt Romney’s candidacy, whether they could accept a Mormon president, as if Mr. Romney’s faith mattered in the least to his potential job performance. Simply put, the Party has been a mess for a very long time, and it can only win the Oval Office when the Democrats hand it to them on a silver platter, as LBJ did with his aimless mishandling of Vietnam, as Carter did with his mishandling of the economy and our national defenses, and as Clinton did with his indiscretions, which elevated “moral values” to the #1 reason why people voted for George Bush in 2000. Winning by unifying against another’s weaknesses simply isn’t a sustainable long-term plan, because you have no strategy once the other guy is gone and you’re in control. You need a vision of your own, which is where core principles come into play. No principles, no identity. It’s that simple.

It took millions of independent moderates to put President Obama into office. I was among them. We all had our reasons for voting for him, but the lack of a good alternative was probably foremost. That, by no means, makes for a strong support base. Indeed, recent polls are showing that millions of independent moderates have withdrawn their support. Again, I am among them. This is going to open a door for Hillary in 2012 and for the GOP.

I believe that a healthy two-party system is critical, and that moderates need a voice within that system. Moderates are the swing vote, yet they are without a home. That needs to change, which is why I would like to see the Republican Party reform. If the GOP is going to become a viable alternative for moderates, it needs to have courage in its convictions and build a fortress around its core principles. Party members need to agree among themselves to shelve the social issues that ultimately divide the party and create an unacceptable environment for moderates. Accordingly, they need to develop a platform that focuses exclusively on matters concerning the prosperity, defense and welfare of the people. The GOP will never win if it is known as the anti-abortion, or anti-gay, or pro-prayer-in-school party. Certain right-wing factions within the Party would love such monikers, but they would be the kiss of death for the GOP. Party leadership needs to take control, purge intolerance from the agenda, and put the focus of the platform on the sound administration of the country. They need to go back to basics and stick to business. If they do, they might have a chance, and we might have an alternative for moderates.