Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

How the bankers got away with it

Bank bonuses fell in the wake of the financial crash but have risen since.

In my column in this week's magazine (go on, get a subscription), I look at the level of bank bonuses before and after the financial crisis.

Since the crash, mindful of what the Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel described as "bailout outrage", politicians of all three parties have indulged in banker-bashing. But as the graph below shows, there is a significant gap between rhetoric and reality.

Bonus payouts peaked at £11.5bn in 2007 – the year before the crash – and fell to £5.3bn in 2008 following the bailout. Yet since then, as general living standards have continued to fall, the bonus pool has exceeded £7bn for two years running.

A

With investment bank revenues falling, bonus levels are likely to be lower this year than in 2010. The 83 per cent state-owned RBS, which is expected to report a loss of roughly £613m, may pay nearer £1bn in bonuses than last year's £1.3bn. Such payments are at odds with the Tories' tough rhetoric in opposition, however. In 2009, George Osborne called for a ban on bonuses at banks that had received any sort of government guarantee. He later promised to block all cash bonuses over £2,000.

Osborne wasn't the only one. In his 2008 conference speech, David Cameron memorably spoke of a "day of reckoning" for the banks and, in his preface to the Liberal Democrats' manifesto, Nick Clegg declared that the banks should not be allowed to "ride roughshod" over the economy while handing out bonuses "by the bucketload".

The coalition's bank levy, which excludes the first £20bn of liabilities, is expected to raise just £1.25bn this year. By contrast, Alistair Darling's 50 per cent tax on bonuses over £25,000 raised £3.5bn last year.

Ministers rightly point out that the levy will raise more in subsequent years (£2.3bn in 2012 and £2.6bn in 2013) but they have yet to explain the shortfall in revenue this year. For reasons unknown, the government has set the levy at just 0.045 per cent this year but at 0.075 per cent next year and in following years.

The Financial Services Authority has ruled that at least half of all bonuses must be paid in shares rather than cash. But to voters facing the biggest squeeze in living standards since the 1920s, this is likely to be a distinction without a difference.

Tags: Bank Bonuses

11 comments

Lox's picture

@mcquade, only if the partners do their jobs well.

Des Demona's picture

@ Lox
I think it's recently been proven that in the banking sector doing a job well doesn't necessarily correlate with bonuses. If it did we wouldn't be in this mess.

Des Demona's picture

@ Lox
Erm... weren't the banks supposedly making huge 'profits' giving rise to huge bonuses which turned out to be huge contributions from the taxpayer?
Until the short termism and get rich quick and screw everyone else mentality of the City is sorted out then don't think that 'profit' means anything other than what they can get away with in their own pockets.

Michael Richards's picture

@Lox

As I said, the logic may be sound, but the practice irrational.

Lox's picture

Fair point, Des. Short termism is indeed the problem. I don't see state intervention in the banks-either as owner or regulator-as a viable response to that, though: politicians aren't really noted for taking a view of anyhting beyond the next election. I guess the answer is to let banks fail.

ST's picture

Ban bonuses at RBS.
All the high quality will staff leave.
The low quality staff will stay.
RBS will lose more money.
The shares we all own in RBS will become worthless.
More cuts needed to make up the loss.

Great idea, George. Thank goodness nobody will listen to you.

Michael Richards's picture

Although the FSA may dictate that "at least half of all bonuses must be paid in shares rather than cash", this does little to quell concerns about a future banking crash. The logic appears sound, by forcing bonuses to be paid in shares and cash, we're giving investment bankers a stake in the long-term success of their respective banks. It should be remembered, however, that most of Dick Fuld's wealth was tied up in Lehman Brothers shares, and in spite of that he took some of the biggest risks of all.

mcquade's picture

Empty threats, ST

mcquade's picture

They're pleased as punch to get stock not cash.

"Partners [at Goldman Sachs] this week were old that their 2009 bonus will be paid 60% in stock that will vest over 3 years. Several partners we spoke to seemed happy to get Goldman stock instead of cash.

"Cash loses value over time, while Goldman stock gains," one partner said.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bonus-watch-2009-goldman-sachs-pays-huge-...

Lox's picture

@Des, the stock will rise only if the company is making profits, which is why it makes more sense to pay bonuses in stock rather than cash.

mcquade's picture

@Lox
Bankers can do their job averagely well and the stock will still improve.

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets