Discover your dream Career
For Recruiters

TRANCHED: Banks capping bonuses will be evacuated faster than a plane on the Hudson River

Like the melting of the snow, I was beginning to hope that there might be the first signs of a thaw in the credit crunch.

Why? Well, headhunters had begun to call me unprompted. They weren't exactly offering dream jobs, but unsolicited calls are a phenomenon I haven't experienced for nearly a year. This coincided with mutterings about a sudden quickening of pace and a resurrection of genuine hiring.

It turned out to be a false dawn. The surprise writedowns at Lloyds Banking Group following the takeover of HBOS, show that we are still well and truly stuck in the dark of the night.

In these dark hours, strange shapes are coalescing out of public ire. The word "bonus" seems to get journalists salivating and politicians of all political faiths preaching from pulpits about the immorality of financiers the world over. Bonus caps are lurking in the corner, feeding on the disdain.

Now, call it greed if you like, but bankers are - for the most part - highly mercenary individuals. Any bank that caps bonuses across the board is therefore going to be evacuated faster than the plane that fell into the Hudson River last month.

Critics of this argument validly point out that no one else is hiring so that these financial pariahs will be stuck sorting out their mess for the rest of their careers. WRONG - what will happen in reality is that the very good people who have a chance at coming up with intelligent and generally economically sound solutions to these banks problems will be plucked out of the door by a bank or hedge fund that understands the merits of the market economy.

The government dictated banks will slowly lose quality people and be left with those for whom clinging on is the only option. They will be joined by the weaker elements from other banks and the place will be staffed by an unmotivated and inept team that will eventually need rescuing all over again.

Keeping talent by incentivising them may be as politically popular as punching nuns, but it's the best solution there is.

In the meantime my day job (start-up risk consultancy) has proved far more interesting than expected. The financial spoils never quite materialise, but it definitely beats sitting in a moribund investment bank waiting for the government to cap you into oblivion.

author-card-avatar
AUTHORCDO Joe Insider Comment
  • lo
    lol @ giles percy
    25 February 2009

    What type of bankers are you talking about? M&A? DCM? Energy Traders? Prop Traders? Rates Traders? Risk Managers? Not all of the aforementioned areas are going down the tubes and some of the areas are doing quite well? For example, hidden amongst the losses (or in my bank's case, not as high profits) of last year, some desks had their best ever year in terms of profits but these were masked by the writedowns and losses particularly within credit groups. So my point is that you are sadly mistaken if you think that a) all "bankers" are responsible for the credit crisis or b) the IB ship is fatally holed. I like to think of it, more as an armada of ships, some built solidly and some built for speed but without the neccesary rigidity to withstand rough seas. Thus, now we are in the midst of a storm, those ships that haven't been built properly or properly attended to, are taking on water and need to be bailed out yet there are some that are emerging as the market leaders and as with all change, some fall by the wayside in the current guise but some are weathering the storm relatively well and will continue to flourish long into the future. ooooooohhhh yeah!

  • Pe
    Peter123
    24 February 2009

    When will reality sink in? It's both sad and funny (a bit like a clown) to see these ex and soon to be ex-bankers rallying on the deck of their fast sinking ship as she disappears into the dustbin of history. The new world order will look alot simpler, alot more transparent and a great deal more realistic in terms of compensation and authority. We're going to miss you guys :).

  • LO
    LOL @ GILES PERCY
    20 February 2009

    So you are right but NASA et al are all wrong when they complain about "brain drain"?!? which one is it? you tell me, after all you have the PhD! Anyway, if you read my response very carefully you will notice that I say the rejection rate is indicative of them taking the "cream" of the pool and that notion is further supported by NASA et complaining about it. "Best" is obviously subjective hence the word suggestive and the context of complaint!

    Anyway, you are losing sight of the original point which was that some but not all of the people that work in banks or hedge funds today could/would have got into NASA et al if they had wanted to. As an aside, obviously, you have never worked on a real prop desk or in a decent hedge fund (I can't comment on structuring as that is not my forte) if you think that bankers only take people that make them look good - the people I have come into contact with have looked for someone that will either break new ground or enter with a refreshing approach to market situations/data. The fact that they look for someone who will make them a lot of money is a given since obviously, someone who trades well makes the desk a lot of money!

  • gi
    giles.percy
    18 February 2009

    lol - your logic is still screwed - just because it is hard to get into a bank, it does not mean that they employ the best people - you have no definition of best. Banks turn down a lot of phds because a lot apply. That does not mean they take the best.

    Speaking from experience, bankers take the people who they think are going to make them personally the most money - it is pure self-interest. That might mean they take the person who they think will price the most complex obscure hard to price product imaginable. Or it might that they hire a person who might sit in a corner and make them look good. Does that mean they take the best person for the job ?

    Both of these examples are taken from real-life situations.

  • lo
    lol @ giles percy
    18 February 2009

    If you are a PhD in a bank then surely you would know how hard it is to get into Renaissance and other firms of that ilk? Yes PhDs are not ranked however, the amount of PhD students turned away by the top firms is suggestive of them taking the cream of the talent pool, a notion that scientific institutions have endorsed by the fact that they complain about it! To try and assert that spending years in academia only to then work in an industry that admittedly is not at the cutting edge of scientific exploration constitutes not being the best, does not really hold up since at the end of the day, it is a exchange of perhaps more stimulating work (in for example, NASA) for 20-30 times the money. Is that right or wrong? That is not what I have queried. I just find it laughable that most scientific institutions have talked about a "talent" drain towards banking, yet people on here think that some (NOT ALL) of these people couldn't get into NASA.

    p.s. can't really comment on PhD's at your bank but take Alan Howard for example, he seems pretty clever to me and considerably richer than either of us!

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.

Sign up to Morning Coffee!

Coffee mug

The essential daily roundup of news and analysis read by everyone from senior bankers and traders to new recruits.