Jump to content

buctootim

Subscribed Users
  • Posts

    19,881
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by buctootim

  1. Thanks for taking the time to read it (I mean that genuinely, its offputting when someone posts something of that length up). My experience of investment bankers is that most of them live lives of deferred gratification - they work terrible hours with poor quality of life knowing that if they can get into reasonable career positions in 15 years they can earn enough to get the hell out and do something more enjoyable and rewarding (in other than financial terms). Chris Hohn, the hedgie behind CIF, is motivated solely by making money for charity. After making £100m money didnt turn him on any more. He now goes to work on the tube, lives in rented house and gives up to £500m pa to the foundation his wife runs. It doesnt have to be like that. Companies like Google have succeeded in part by attracting the best staff with excellent working conditions and their 'do no evil' mantra (which is in part synthetic, but like yours a discussion for another time)
  2. tbf he ran the asset management division, not the part found guilty of malpractice - and he wrote that piece after becoming disenchanted with GS and setting up his own company. My point wasn't to defend GS but to point out that many senior people in the industry are concerned about the way the current system operates. Otherwise you just get tiresome ****s like Dune saying its all a socialist plot to screw everything up.
  3. Many senior bankers are worried by the bonus culture which has become disconnected from real performance. This is just one example, David Blood ex CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management. You should read "There are several well understood advantages inherent in capitalism that make it superior to any other system for organizing economic activity. It has proven to be far more efficient in the allocation of resources and the matching of supply with demand, far more effective at wealth creation, and far more conducive to high levels of freedom and political self-governance. At the most basic level, however, capitalism has become the world's economic ideology of choice primarily because it demonstrably unlocks a higher fraction of the human potential with ubiquitous organic incentives that reward hard work, ingenuity and innovation. For these reasons and others, markets lie at the foundation of every successful economy. Yet the recent crisis in global markets (following other significant market dislocations in 1994, 1997, 1998 and in 2000-2001), has shaken the world's confidence in the way modern capitalism is now operating. Moreover, glaring and worsening systemic failures—such as growing income inequality, high levels of unemployment, public and private indebtedness, chronic under-investment in education and public health, persistent extreme poverty in developing nations and, most importantly, the reckless inattention to the worsening climate crisis—are among the factors that have led many to ask: What type of capitalism will maximize sustainable economic growth? At the very least, the last decade has clearly demonstrated that free and unfettered markets, as they are currently operating, have simply not been delivering optimal long-term results. Before the crisis and since, we (and others) have called for a more long-term and responsible form of capitalism—what we call "sustainable capitalism." Sustainable capitalism seeks to maximize long-term value creation. It explicitly integrates environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into strategy, the measurement of outputs, and the assessment of both risks and opportunities. Sustainable capitalism challenges us to generate financial return in a long-term and responsible manner. Precisely because the energy unlocked by incentives is the true source of capitalism's strength, we believe that the building of sustainable capitalism should start with careful attention to the nature and design of the incentives that businesses use and public policies encourage. In his book, "The Big Short," Michael Lewis identified the real cause of the subprime mortgage debacle (which triggered the Great Recession) as one factor above all else: "Greed on Wall Street was a given—almost an obligation. The problem was the system of incentives that channeled the greed." So how do we best motivate business leaders to manage for the long- term and compensate them for creating sustainable wealth? To begin with, compensation should be aligned with long-term objectives, and financial rewards should be linked to the period over which results are realized. For example, in the asset-management industry, we are strong proponents of multiyear rolling performance fees in order to incent investors to manage assets with a long-term perspective. By contrast, if asset owners continue to review and reward their asset managers on a quarterly or annual basis, they should not be surprised to find their investment managers attempting to optimize returns within this time frame—frequently at the expense of long-term value. Unfortunately, this is all too common a practice for asset owners—even for pension funds, whose trustees are obligated to match the long-term performance of their assets to the long-term maturation of their liabilities. In "Common Sense," Thomas Paine wrote, "A long habit of not thinking a thing is wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right." This is certainly true for compensation strategies in both business and finance. Our excessive focus on the short-term represents a primary obstacle to the development of sustainable capitalism. Incentive structures should also reflect more complete measures of performance. For example, increasingly, best practice companies are explicitly including environmental sustainability, customer satisfaction, employee morale and workplace safety in their incentive schemes. These companies understand that these considerations drive long-term financial performance. We also feel strongly that if asset owners want their asset managers to consider ESG factors in investment decisions, then they should include these factors in evaluating, measuring and rewarding performance. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "The reward of a thing well done is to have done it." Countless doctors, nurses, teachers, firemen and policemen work tirelessly not only for the money, but for the satisfaction of doing their job well. In contrast, an overreliance on monetary incentives, often called the "bonus culture," for finance and senior corporate leaders has come at the expense of sustainable competitive strategies like team work, ethics, firm culture and long-term client relationships. There is no question monetary incentives are important—indeed critical—but it is important also to consider other meaningful ways to motivate and engage work forces. In a recent book by George Akerlof and Rachel Kranton, "Identity Economics," the authors document how people in exceptional organizations work well because they identify with the values and the culture, not simply the financial rewards. Further, a recent survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. showed that nonfinancial motivators are more effective at building long-term employee engagement. Yet, somehow over the last decade we have let the "bonus culture" dominate our discourse and thinking on incentives. We can all see the results are not good. Moreover, the rising inequality in our society is clearly unacceptable. It poses fundamental questions of fairness and whether these levels of income disparity are sustainable within the context of the long-term health and civility of our communities. Business leaders, as well as compensation committees of boards, need to exert better leadership and shareholders must become more engaged in improving incentive structures. We strongly support "Say on Pay," whereby shareholders vote on the remuneration of executives, and other provisions championed by many institutional investors. We do not support government-mandated compensation caps or other prescribed compensation policies. However, if the business and investment communities do not act, governments may. All of us in business and finance need to urgently rethink how we design and implement remuneration strategies. We need to get incentives right. They must be aligned with long-term objectives, reflect more complete measures of performance, include important nonfinancial motivators, and be equitable. This, coupled with a renewed commitment to long-term responsible business strategies that include environmental, social and governmental concerns, will be significant steps toward building sustainable capitalism
  4. Im not against bankers bonuses. The trouble is that they are paid on short term results. The guys who developed derivatives based on US subprime made massive bonuses, with no doubt the majority moving on to other jobs and employers before it went sour. There should be some mechanism for long term clawback of bonuses if necessary; a firewall between investment banking and retail banking; and some kind of bonded insurance scheme so that future bailouts dont fall on the tax payer.
  5. Dont bother Dune. You dont even understand the issues let alone the nuances of an argument.
  6. Without knowing the bank involved its hard to be specific, but I'd be exteremely surprised if that bank werent benefitting from the continuing central banks provsion of guarantees and liquidity.
  7. Dune. In all seriousness I'd give more weight to Katie Price's views on investment banking than I would to yours. At least she has achieved something in life and had the occasional orginal thought.
  8. You do realise that a) all the major UK banks except Lloyds have (had) major investment banking arms b) Yes the Government had no choice but to keep them afloat, all the more reason to end the bonus culture which rewards excessive risk taking and leaves the taxpayer to pick up the tab when the bet goes wrong.
  9. buctootim

    Shares

    Lolz. Ive met Algy Cluff. I'm very happy to bet that in 5 years time he will still be extremely rich, but you wont be.
  10. Try and divide £850bn of government support necessary to keep the bankers earning bonuses from collapsing their employers
  11. Not an excessive return for the £850bn in support and guarantees the government has provided to UK banks to rescue them from their own bad business decsions.
  12. Lots of garges round these parts (the sticks) sell red diesel for around 65p a litre and tend not to look too closely what kind of tank it is going into.
  13. buctootim

    Ed Milliband

    Seems like Ketamine has dulled his pain and reasoning.
  14. And the answers were......?
  15. a BACS or CHAPS transfer direct from your account to theirs is the safest and cheapest. Check your banks exchange rate though. For £5,000 you might want to look at a specialist forex dealer. http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/foreign-currency-exchange
  16. Bit like us with Scotland
  17. Lolz. That'll be the titan behind Norway, Luxembourg, Iceland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden, Belgium and Denmark. And on an exact par with poor old UK. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html?countryName=Germany&countryCode=gm&regionCode=eu&rank=35#gm
  18. As many companies become increasingly globalised it becomes easier for them to relocate their centre of operations to whichever country offers the most favourable corporation tax regime. International operations offers huge scope to reclassify and reallocate costs and profits to whichever project or operation offers the maximum tax shelter. And once a few companies do it and add billions to their bottom line, it puts pressure on the rest to follow suit. Short of a global government, which no-one wants, I cant see how individual countries can avoid being screwed over by large companies.
  19. buctootim

    History

    Current affairs for them
  20. Its not about envy. Im not in the top 1% but comfortably in the top 10%. As Im paid as a contractor by a US organisation but live in the UK there are numerous ways for me to dodge (ie legally avoid) UK income tax, but I dont. I dont demonise bankers because the whole issue of renumeration in many fields is vexed. I have absolutely no problem with entrepreneurs running their own companies making as much as they can, thats a good thing. They risk their own money and if they get it right they take the profits, and suffer the personal losses if they dont. The issue of employees getting huge bonuses gambling their employers resources is different because there is no real penalty for failure. Running a public service organisation for £850,000pa (BBC) is equally wrong imo.
  21. Im struggling on how to bring tits into this.
  22. According to IFS its 12.8% of income tax not 27% of total tax take - two very different figures. They do however own 22% of UK wealth. So the owners of 22% of the wealth pay 12.8% of the tax. Hmm.
  23. I work with an American girl based in California who is engaged to a guy from Hull. He is trying to persuade her to move there and she asked me what it was like and whether the good things she had heard were accurate. Bless.
  24. Go on then, I'll nibble. Which bank?
×
×
  • Create New...