Comments on: Erm, so what?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:40:43 +0000

JonnyN -the figure used is 60% bonus, 40% salary, so there’s a fair chunk it’s missing.

By: Monty

Monty — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:13:25 +0000

“Wall Street firms have always been famous for their generous bonuses to managers and traders — their so-called rainmakers.”

There are rainmakers, and there are piss-artists…

By: JonnyN

JonnyN — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:10:15 +0000

Matthew,

In an investment bank most of your compensation is bonus.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:04:18 +0000

The chart shows bonuses, not total compensation.

By: Luis Enrique

Luis Enrique — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:41:54 +0000

that’s interesting Mark – so does the aggregate split of roughly 2/1 arise because of profits made by landowners and property owners?

By: Person of Choler

Person of Choler — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:26:07 +0000

The fact that bonuses in loss years 2007 and 2008 were quite high makes one think that the compensation system rewards something other than profitability and does not punish losses.

P&L statements might look better if the system were re-arranged.

By: Mark Wadsworth

Mark Wadsworth — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:03:45 +0000

Most businesses tend to follow the 80/20 split between salaries/wages and profits. Property companies don’t count as businesses for these purposes.

By: Luis Enrique

Luis Enrique — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:15:28 +0000

yes, that’s not a terribly strong point is it – if every business paid in line with aggregate income shares, we’d expect to see total employee compensation of double profits, wouldn’t we.

I’d be interested to see what the labour / capital shares are in banking … that might tell us whether labour is “exploiting” capital or not

(it that right? labour share apprx. 2/3, does it imply the above?)