5 ms·

This is an article which uses the popular 'hate the bankers' line to try and show something new. I don't think the bankers with the big bonuses are going to ge

by brc 17y ago

This is an article which uses the popular 'hate the bankers' line to try and show something new. I don't think the bankers with the big bonuses are going to get worried anytime soon. Banking is not really about personal loans and microfinance. If anything, banks do these things to keep customers coming in the door. The really big banks, the investment banks of the world, don't even do mortgages, because there's not enough scale. 50 million in loans isn't even the skin cells on the pimple on the bum of international banking. Until peer-to-peer finance can build a house, shopping centre or a bridge, I don't think those multi-million dollar bonuses are in any danger. This is a bank, just with lower overheads and accordingly lower margins.

jrockway 17y ago
I agree completely here. I am also not that bitter that bank employees are getting bonuses. There are probably some really smart people solving complicated problems there, they don't deserve to be punished because the government happened to bail out their employer. (They should have just let the banks fail, if this is such a big deal.)
- rapind 17y ago
  Huh? That's the definition of bonus! Let's say you do a little side project for a friend's business. He agrees to pay you $1,000 regardless of whether his business succeeds or fails. To motivate you to put in more time and effort he agrees to pay you a bonus of %5 of the profits should his business double within the first year of your work completing. Because of this percentage enticement you put in way more time and effort than you normally would for $1,000. However, his business fails completely and bankrupts him, despite your efforts. You don't get a bonus. Now a reasonable person would understand that this is the risk you took with your time and effort. That you were only guaranteed $1,000. Any extra effort you put in was essentially an investment. Let's say though that your friend convinced his neighboors that his business was essential to their well being and took up donations. Now instead of laying low and working hard to get his business back on track and pay off his neighboors, he start throwing bonus money around, most likely because he is also compensated via bonus money as president of his business. This seriously works for you?
  - mediaman 17y ago
    The companies being bailed out are very large. Your example does not work because it presumes that bonuses are, or should be, tied to profitability or performance of the entire company. Many companies wisely do not do this; rather they tie bonuses to the performance of business processes they are responsible for. Suppose you work at a plumbing and carpentry business. You work for the plumbing division; an incompetent coworker works in the carpentry division. The coworker buys loads of wood for a client, but then lets it sit in the rain for too long and it rots. You have an employment contract that rewards you with a bonus for the performance in the plumbing business, which performs well. However, the loss of material causes the firm's overall profitability to turn to a loss, even though your division has reversed some of the damage of the carpentry division. Should your bonus be reneged because of the carpenter? Suppose you have a job offer at a competing plumbing business, and you decide that you will leave for that job if your current employer eliminates your bonus despite the contribution in profits you have made to the firm. Is the firm best served by eliminating your bonus? Questions of bonuses for the CEO, presuming it was the CEO who presided over the disaster, are another matter: it's not clear why they should be rewarded by the board, given that they are ultimately responsible for all divisions.
    - rapind 17y ago
      This is a really good point and I'm actually familiar with the concept. It avoids profitable departments dragging along unprofitable ones in a large corp for extended periods of time (Pretty sure BCE is a good example of this). So I can agree that handing out bonuses to a successful department while the rest of the company drags the entire bottom line down can be a very good thing. However, here you have an unsuccessful business deciding to use their bailout money to keep who they believe are talented around by handing out bonuses. This reeks of mismanagement. There do exists companies that have tightened up their spending a great deal at the moment. Letting their employees know that they don't have extra coin to throw at them right now. If you are a crazy talented banker, and have confidence in the company you work for, and agree that they deserved to be bailed out, then you wouldn't take a big bonus. You would rather it goes back into the business so you could gain higher returns down the road (like long term employment and future real bonuses). On the other hand, if you are a crazy talented banker, and you have no confidence in your company succeeding, then you're probably going to take that bonus because you know you'll never see it again anyways.
mediaman 17y ago
Thank you -- I see a lot of people thinking 'banking' is all about your personal small loan from the neighborhood bank. That's like a tiny slice of the tip of the iceberg. Most banking takes place in volume, it is done through personal contacts, and it requires substantial knowledge and background in banking to do. Anyone who has ever managed a significant line of credit, term loan, or more sophisticated instruments used by larger businesses knows that you cannot just replace it with some peer to peer model.
- silentOpen 17y ago
  This tiny slice is important. Disruption of industries starts at the bottom and the margins. Finance's lunch will be eaten by the internet or one of its successors sooner or later. It could be argued that the mortgage market meltdown was only possible with modern computational and communication technology so in some sense, the disruption is already happening -- the i-banks couldn't keep their newly possible hyper-risk under control.
  - sokoloff 17y ago
    Important or not, this tiny slice isn't going to "do away with banks altogether"
    - silentOpen 17y ago
      They even admit as much in the article... the headline was crap but thems the times we live in :-(. Think about a credit card company that makes a credit line marketplace... consumer banking will see major shifts in the next decade (wild predictions!).

by brc 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago

I agree completely here. I am also not that bitter that bank employees are getting bonuses. There are probably some really smart people solving complicated problems there, they don't deserve to be punished because the government happened to bail out their employer. (They should have just let the banks fail, if this is such a big deal.)

rapind 17y ago
Huh? That's the definition of bonus! Let's say you do a little side project for a friend's business. He agrees to pay you $1,000 regardless of whether his business succeeds or fails. To motivate you to put in more time and effort he agrees to pay you a bonus of %5 of the profits should his business double within the first year of your work completing. Because of this percentage enticement you put in way more time and effort than you normally would for $1,000. However, his business fails completely and bankrupts him, despite your efforts. You don't get a bonus. Now a reasonable person would understand that this is the risk you took with your time and effort. That you were only guaranteed $1,000. Any extra effort you put in was essentially an investment. Let's say though that your friend convinced his neighboors that his business was essential to their well being and took up donations. Now instead of laying low and working hard to get his business back on track and pay off his neighboors, he start throwing bonus money around, most likely because he is also compensated via bonus money as president of his business. This seriously works for you?
- mediaman 17y ago
  The companies being bailed out are very large. Your example does not work because it presumes that bonuses are, or should be, tied to profitability or performance of the entire company. Many companies wisely do not do this; rather they tie bonuses to the performance of business processes they are responsible for. Suppose you work at a plumbing and carpentry business. You work for the plumbing division; an incompetent coworker works in the carpentry division. The coworker buys loads of wood for a client, but then lets it sit in the rain for too long and it rots. You have an employment contract that rewards you with a bonus for the performance in the plumbing business, which performs well. However, the loss of material causes the firm's overall profitability to turn to a loss, even though your division has reversed some of the damage of the carpentry division. Should your bonus be reneged because of the carpenter? Suppose you have a job offer at a competing plumbing business, and you decide that you will leave for that job if your current employer eliminates your bonus despite the contribution in profits you have made to the firm. Is the firm best served by eliminating your bonus? Questions of bonuses for the CEO, presuming it was the CEO who presided over the disaster, are another matter: it's not clear why they should be rewarded by the board, given that they are ultimately responsible for all divisions.
  - rapind 17y ago
    This is a really good point and I'm actually familiar with the concept. It avoids profitable departments dragging along unprofitable ones in a large corp for extended periods of time (Pretty sure BCE is a good example of this). So I can agree that handing out bonuses to a successful department while the rest of the company drags the entire bottom line down can be a very good thing. However, here you have an unsuccessful business deciding to use their bailout money to keep who they believe are talented around by handing out bonuses. This reeks of mismanagement. There do exists companies that have tightened up their spending a great deal at the moment. Letting their employees know that they don't have extra coin to throw at them right now. If you are a crazy talented banker, and have confidence in the company you work for, and agree that they deserved to be bailed out, then you wouldn't take a big bonus. You would rather it goes back into the business so you could gain higher returns down the road (like long term employment and future real bonuses). On the other hand, if you are a crazy talented banker, and you have no confidence in your company succeeding, then you're probably going to take that bonus because you know you'll never see it again anyways.

mediaman 17y ago

Thank you -- I see a lot of people thinking 'banking' is all about your personal small loan from the neighborhood bank. That's like a tiny slice of the tip of the iceberg. Most banking takes place in volume, it is done through personal contacts, and it requires substantial knowledge and background in banking to do. Anyone who has ever managed a significant line of credit, term loan, or more sophisticated instruments used by larger businesses knows that you cannot just replace it with some peer to peer model.

silentOpen 17y ago
This tiny slice is important. Disruption of industries starts at the bottom and the margins. Finance's lunch will be eaten by the internet or one of its successors sooner or later. It could be argued that the mortgage market meltdown was only possible with modern computational and communication technology so in some sense, the disruption is already happening -- the i-banks couldn't keep their newly possible hyper-risk under control.
- sokoloff 17y ago
  Important or not, this tiny slice isn't going to "do away with banks altogether"
  - silentOpen 17y ago
    They even admit as much in the article... the headline was crap but thems the times we live in :-(. Think about a credit card company that makes a credit line marketplace... consumer banking will see major shifts in the next decade (wild predictions!).