• Wed
  • Sep 24, 2014
  • Updated: 9:01am
Jake's View
PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 09 April, 2013, 12:00am
UPDATED : Tuesday, 09 April, 2013, 4:25am

Why top bankers deserve to be paid huge salaries

Governments are leaving it to market smarts to invest deposits, and they don't come cheap

"Despite billions of pounds of liquidity support from taxpayers, many senior bankers seemed still to be arguing that they deserved their precrisis levels of pay"

Barclays internal report,
SCMP, April 4


I sympathise with the outrage in this Barclays memo. The very people who plunged the bank into trouble and who should have been sacked, or at least seen their pay cut, still think they deserve huge salaries.

I also happen to think that these people are right. It is perverse, but it is the logical, inevitable outcome of the way that governments around the world want to remove deposit risk from banking. To their employers, senior bankers are worth every cent of their high pay.

Let's start here by sketching a Norman Rockwell-style picture of the traditional bank of Anytown. Townbank has a simple balance sheet. On one side, it holds deposits from the public and shareholders' equity. On the other side, it puts this money to work as local loans and advances plus a portfolio of municipal and corporate bonds. It also holds a big stash of cash, just to be safe.

These assets are safe indeed. Fail to meet payments on your home or car, and you're in trouble. Townbank will have your home listed tomorrow and your car on the forecourt at Honest John's Motors. Corporate borrowers don't get much easier terms.

In Townbank's securities portfolio, there is also little risk of default on the municipal bonds. Townbank's chairman is one of the municipality's aldermen. He also sits on the boards of important local corporate clients. Townbank is safe.

And you, as a depositor, want it that way. In the traditional world, your deposits are at risk. If Townbank fails, you may get back only 50 cents on the dollar of your deposits or, perhaps, nothing at all.

Now let Townbank decide that it would like to boost profits by holding credit default swaps on foreign currency collateralised debt obligations.

You will certainly hear about it quickly. In Anytown's world, this sort of news travels fast, only barely faster than the speed with which you will take your bank deposits out. Townbank will soon get the message and go back to the old style of business.

This style of business doesn't need much brainpower. It's a farming business. The bank sows the deposits and reaps the harvest. It's really an administrator's job, and it pays an administrator's salary.

Now let's shift to the world of government deposit guarantees, today's world. If Townbank goes for the default swaps on the CDOs, you don't care. You will get your money back from the government if it all goes wrong, and in the meantime, Townbank may pay you a more competitive deposit rate.

Of course, Townbank's directors don't want it to go wrong, but they now live in a much more complicated environment than when they just did old-style banking. They must follow the trend or risk losing your deposits to a bank that does follow the trend.

It means they have to find people who know exactly how to write default swaps on CDOs and are also savvy enough to know when to pull the chain on these default swaps and take their cash. We are now talking big brainpower and market smarts. These don't come cheap.

And there you have the perversity of it all. Government deposit guarantees, which are intended to create a level playing field for all depositors, have exactly the opposite effect on the salaries paid in this field.

In fact, they also do not help the depositors much. You may get your money back when Townbank fails, but you pay for the rescue in your taxes. You are probably worse off.

The lesson of it is that governments cannot just take over one side of a bank balance sheet. If they guarantee deposits, then they must also take control of how those deposits are invested.

But they shrink from this prospect. They haven't a clue of how to do it. So they just leave the asset side of the balance sheet in the hands of the wolves. The inevitable result is regular trouble and outrageous salaries.



Related topics

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

I don't think anybody has ever agreed with Jake...
I also have to disagree with Jake on this one. jve summed up the reality regarding the banking collapse but I think the problem is much more pervasive than just the banking sector. The C-suite has been ripping off shareholders like crazy with complicit BODs who sit on each other's compensation committees and reward senior executives regardless of performance. Is any senior executive of a publicly listed company really worth many millions or even hundreds of millions each year?
Jake, this is a good one in easy English. Well done.
Have to disagree with Jake here.
I don't put money in a bank so bankers can risk it on 50:1 leveraged bets to please shareholders or to increase share price. I put money in the bank / time deposits for safe keeping, I risk money in other investments, stock, property, bonds, business investments and don't need to find out money in the bank is NOT SAFE.
This is a good wake up call for everyone. If banks are risking my deposits buying government debt that is now is at risk of default I would rather take my money out of the banks and put it into a money market fund.
So, no I don't think bankers justify high salaries. They are custodians of my hard earned cash, if I want risk I would invest with a hedge fund or ETF's or ****.
Not saying that the financial institutions are/aren't right, but It's always fun and easy to pick on the "minority". The mass population who make up the majority of voters, and have a large portion in unions, are a "no go" when it comes to finger pointing. Bank execs may make a lot, but so do people in the general government jobs ****www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-11/-822-000-worker-shows-california-leads-u-s-pay-giveaway.html. This to me is much more appaling and disturbing. Low risk job, and great returns --> including annual pensions, the compensation is huge.
Perhaps the big brainpower and market smartness had been used mostly to convince everyone else that they were engaged in highly sophisticated trading, thus providing an aurora of guru-status which in turn derives and requires big compensation packages to sustain.
Also, with regards to the point about deposit guarantees allegedly leading to wilder behaviour on the asset side of bank balance sheets:

MFGlobal, Bear Stearns, AIG, Merrill Lynch and pre-2008 Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs were all either brought down, bailed-out or nearly brought down due to excessive exposure to various, mostly US housing-related, derivatives which their executives failed to understand in sufficient detail or even in aggregate exposure.

None of these institutions benefited from deposit insurance in any way.
All makes sense, except for one thing, and unfortunately the whole argument then falls apart as fast you can say Lehman Brothers. If there is one thing that became painfully clear as a result of the past five years of financial crisis, it is that even extremely highly paid executives at investment banks (Lehman, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley), commercial banks (Citi, JPMorgan, RBS, Wachovia) and other key players (AIG, MFGlobal) in the derivative markets have either no clue about what their institutions are really up to when it comes to CDO's, CDS and all the rest of the stuff, or (worse?)are not able/willing to manage the risks these activities bring with them.

And perhaps even more damaging, as we saw particularly in Q3 2008, the complexity is such that trust in the entire system is eroded, or even completely disappears. Credit markets in that period didn't freeze because Townbank & Co were proven to be insolvent, they froze because counter-parties thought of each other they COULD be insolvent, and there was no way to assess that risk convicingly, not even for those on the inside.

So sorry, but I can't buy into your reasoning on this. If only these highly paid executives would have demonstrated their ability to indeed manage the risks of a complex financial institution... But they didn't, so to use this as an explanation for their salaries, even leaving aside the question of whether government deposit guarantees subsidise this, does not make sense.


SCMP.com Account