Discover your dream Career
For Recruiters

THE INSIDER: Why I hate the salary increases

For many of us, this is the first year that the annual bonus round will be (supposedly) tempered by salary increases. In some cases, these have been substantial. Are they a good idea? I think not. Here's why.

An army of drones

Lets look at the extreme case of a fixed salary and no bonus - what does that do to incentives? Sure, the incentive to take on excessive risk is gone, but so is the incentive to perform - you create a drone who will do the minimal required to maintain their fixed salary.

OK, there may still be some incentives e.g. promotion, salary increases etc., but they exist only at certain points in a career and once people reach MD the focus will become one of perpetuating an annuity for as long as possible, not on out-performance. One of the basic tenets of good compensation is pay for performance - how is that possible with a predominant salary compensation policy? Short answer: it isn't. There are other ways to control risk taking, but replacing bonus with salary is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The wilder outer fringes

Even if you are happy to lose the positive elements of the bonus culture to eliminate excess risk taking, the reality is that the risk taking that you are seeking to control really resides with a very small percentage of the personnel base. I bet that if you were to analyse the number of individuals in any institution that were really accountable for the vast bulk of losses throughout the crisis you'd be hard pressed to find an organisation where you could count more than 100. So, given MD salaries historically have been 120K - 150K and bonuses of the real risk-takers have been multiple 7 or even 8 figures, doubling salaries (the high end of the what we've seen so far) doesn't even come close to meaningfully changing incentives where it matters most.

A swifter death

Double the truly non-discretionary fixed cost base of their platforms and everyone's job has just become much more expendable - it's the same economic principle as a minimum wage ultimately costing society jobs (but without the compensatory moral arguments). There were plenty of cases of MDs and Ds who got zero bonuses last year but kept their jobs. Double the salary levels and I suspect many of those will not be so lucky next time around.

Increase salaries? Sure, let's reduce pay for performance among 99% of the workforce, have negligible impact on the risk taking incentives with those for whom it matters most, and weaken everybody's job security. Sounds like a great idea.

author-card-avatar
AUTHORGeorge Trower Insider Comment
  • Ba
    Basil
    27 October 2009

    Traders will happily take risks with the Bank's money that they simply wouldn't entertain with the contents of their own piggy bank..Simple..

  • fx
    fxo man
    27 October 2009

    re- PokerPro/Trader chap above, note this is 100% p&l TAX FREE

    let's do some simple math:

    if you believe the hype about all these 7 fig bonuses for flow traders, let's work with p&l for bank of usd 30m, 'franchise adjusted' to usd 15-20m of actual value add, and therefore apprx gbp 10m (gbpusd fx rate a little high i know, ease of numbers)

    = gbp 1m bonus (10% of prod), assume 100% cash up front (good luck with that)

    = so, soon to be just gbp 500k in ur pocket + net salary gbp 50k

    = gbp 550k total

    spread betting you'd need to make just gbp 10k / week, or 2k / day. now, as a trader myself, i know that you're going to have p&l swings, perhaps funding issues etc. reduced access to client flow info, research also

    point is that all this talk of 'prop' p&l is utter nonsense, except in a few special cases. those people know who they are. as do the street.

    any self respecting trader would tell you they could make way more than gbp 10k per week with their eyes closed? why don't they go solo then? because the overwhelming majority of what they 'make' is easy money, and they know this all too well... maybe that franchise adjustment should be a bit higher???

  • An
    Anonymous
    27 October 2009

    Raising base salaries does not address the underlying problem. Increasing base pay is a fudge - pretending that bonuses have fallen, by only quoting them as a % of base pay, is not a viable solution. If base salaries were fixed and the absolute size of bonuses reduced in line with risk-weighting, that would be a much more appropriate way to shift total compensation into a more sustainable and economically justifiable position.

  • Po
    Poker Pro/Trader
    27 October 2009

    If you don't like it..grow a pair and go and trade with your own money and get a 100% P&L bonus. As opposed to gambling with client funds with no real exposure of your own.

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.