NY Times On Banker Salaries

I was on the NYT website, replied to the liberal bull shit there. What do you guys think? Here's the article http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/o… here is my response.

Why should succeses have to pay for failures? Many Wall Streeters are underpaid. I recognize that many times readers are angry because they have nowhere near the level of success but that's tough. The true issue is rather than embracing a true free market model i.e. no bail outs, we have a semi-open model where there is extensive regulation that favors the big boys. The vast majority of these complaints seem to be rooted in the "they make more than me, it's not fair" argument. The thing that separates bankers from minimum wage workers is about 50 IQ points. Most bankers come from the Ivy League, MIT-Sloan, Caltech and the like, most people making 15k a year come from flunking out in the ninth grade. The fact that some people make $15,000 a year isn't their fault. The reality is if you taxed most individuals making 1 MM or more a year at 95%, they wouldn't work nearly as hard. I am not my brother's keeper. I have no responsibility towards those less fortunate than me. I know it sounds shocking, but in reality I have no duty towards them. At what point will people willingly say, that they're not mad they're jealous.

 

Absolutely. I love the comments to the effect of some people are making 15k a year and bankers make millions to billions, it's not fair. My comment is fair is when the rules are applied evenly. Not when everyone makes 50k a year, that's communism and we see how that worked out. It was free market economics that brought up the standard of living in this country and they are loathe to see that bankers are the economic lubrication aiding the flow of capital. I would love for Atlas to shrug and these lefty middle managers and professors to see what happens.

 

Absolutely. I love the comments to the effect of some people are making 15k a year and bankers make millions to billions, it's not fair. My comment is fair is when the rules are applied evenly. Not when everyone makes 50k a year, that's communism and we see how that worked out. It was free market economics that brought up the standard of living in this country and they are loathe to see that bankers are the economic lubrication aiding the flow of capital. I would love for Atlas to shrug and these lefty middle managers and professors to see what happens.

 
Best Response

You made several absurd statement, but I'll just point out that your claim that arguments against banker salaries are rooted in "they make more than me, it's not fair" is totally inconsistent with the article. You don't get paid based on your IQ. The author is reasonably arguing that your salary should generally be based on the level of risk you take and what rare expertise, talent, or value you add. I think most reasonable people would agree with that. It is true that investment bankers do not take risks that justify their pay. But a valid counter argument could be that they do have specific expertise in finance that, when used to advise their clients, can result in big revenue gains and they are paid accordingly. I don't personally believe that completely but at least it makes sense.

All that ridiculous stuff you said about having no obligation to others in society doesn't really merit a response.

 
HeHateMe:
You made several absurd statement, but I'll just point out that your claim that arguments against banker salaries are rooted in "they make more than me, it's not fair" is totally inconsistent with the article. You don't get paid based on your IQ. The author is reasonably arguing that your salary should generally be based on the level of risk you take and what rare expertise, talent, or value you add. I think most reasonable people would agree with that. It is true that investment bankers do not take risks that justify their pay. But a valid counter argument could be that they do have specific expertise in finance that, when used to advise their clients, can result in big revenue gains and they are paid accordingly. I don't personally believe that completely but at least it makes sense.

All that ridiculous stuff you said about having no obligation to others in society doesn't really merit a response.

Read the comments to the article. There's several people stating that anyone earning over $1 million should be taxed at 90%. I think the OP was responding more so to them than the author of the article.

 
HeHateMe:
The author is reasonably arguing that your salary should generally be based on the level of risk you take and what rare expertise, talent, or value you add. I think most reasonable people would agree with that. It is true that investment bankers do not take risks that justify their pay.

Risk takers put their own capital on the line and are rewarded to the degree that their risk rewards them - entrepreneurs, traders. People who are paid more of a steady salary - everyone from bankers to WalMart cashiers - are compensated in a different way; they're paid the market rate for their services.

So it really comes down to a problem with the market rate of bankers' salaries/bonuses - the author sees little skill or value to justify such large salaries. Well, the market sees it differently. So STFU.

 
HeHateMe:
You made several absurd statement, but I'll just point out that your claim that arguments against banker salaries are rooted in "they make more than me, it's not fair" is totally inconsistent with the article. You don't get paid based on your IQ. The author is reasonably arguing that your salary should generally be based on the level of risk you take and what rare expertise, talent, or value you add. I think most reasonable people would agree with that. It is true that investment bankers do not take risks that justify their pay. But a valid counter argument could be that they do have specific expertise in finance that, when used to advise their clients, can result in big revenue gains and they are paid accordingly. I don't personally believe that completely but at least it makes sense.

All that ridiculous stuff you said about having no obligation to others in society doesn't really merit a response.

"Like"

 

It's incredibly frustrating to read these articles as someone who works in the industry (the comment section in particular). It's not that these people aren't entitled to their opinion, it is that some of their opinions are based on 100% incorrect facts.

For example: One guy said that bonuses are only taxed up to the first $100,000, while the rest is tax free. This couldn't be further from the truth.

I can think of tons of reasons to justify the compensation levels, but people aren't willing to listen to the reasons. Similarly, it would probably take an unimaginable amount of effort to sway my own opinion. So -- what's the point in arguing -- it mostly just fuels the fire.

CompBanker’s Career Guidance Services: https://www.rossettiadvisors.com/
 

NYT/WSJ are both crap. They just publish whatever they can to get their readers angered. They sell ads and subscriptions, and readers will keep coming back to read something that they agree with.

Have you ever read a Bloomberg article that made you cringe? Most likely no, as Bloomberg rarely has biased reporting or instill anger in their readers.

looking for that pick-me-up to power through an all-nighter?
 
<span class=keyword_link><a href=//www.wallstreetoasis.com/finance-dictionary/what-is-london-interbank-offer-rate-libor>LIBOR</a></span>:
NYT/WSJ are both crap. They just publish whatever they can to get their readers angered. They sell ads and subscriptions, and readers will keep coming back to read something that they agree with.

Have you ever read a Bloomberg article that made you cringe? Most likely no, as Bloomberg rarely has biased reporting or instill anger in their readers.

BINGO. 100% agree. I don't mind reading the WSJ, but if you want a real read, pick up the Economist, Bloomberg Markets, Financial Times. All three are great.

The more education I receive and the older I get the more I tend to gravitate towards pure sources of info verses the polarized bullshit produced for the masses.

Avoid opinion pages like the plague. When people ask what you do just give a vague answer. No need to get into an argument. Most people cannot articulate a good argument about anything, they just see someone making more money than them and they hate it. Make the money, build the connections and let the rabble have their bitterness and hate to comfort them.

 
ANT:
<span class=keyword_link><a href=/finance-dictionary/what-is-london-interbank-offer-rate-libor>LIBOR</a></span>:
NYT/WSJ are both crap. They just publish whatever they can to get their readers angered. They sell ads and subscriptions, and readers will keep coming back to read something that they agree with.

Have you ever read a Bloomberg article that made you cringe? Most likely no, as Bloomberg rarely has biased reporting or instill anger in their readers.

BINGO. 100% agree. I don't mind reading the WSJ, but if you want a real read, pick up the Economist, Bloomberg Markets, Financial Times. All three are great.

The more education I receive and the older I get the more I tend to gravitate towards pure sources of info verses the polarized bullshit produced for the masses.

Avoid opinion pages like the plague. When people ask what you do just give a vague answer. No need to get into an argument. Most people cannot articulate a good argument about anything, they just see someone making more money than them and they hate it. Make the money, build the connections and let the rabble have their bitterness and hate to comfort them.

How in the world is the Economist unbiased? They call themselves an authoritative newspaper, they are proud to defend free markets in every article and will tell you" who they would vote for if they had a vote" in important elections. The Economist is great though, very in-depth.

People will name thousands of reasons why they think bankers are overpaid, but it all comes down to envy. I agree that no argument will convince the envious people to change their minds. But we should let them be envious for they will be unhappy. As Bertrand Russel said:

"Envy consists in seeing things never in themselves, but only in their relations. If you desire glory, you may envy Napoleon, but Napoleon envied Caesar, Caesar envied Alexander, and Alexander, I daresay, envied Hercules, who never existed.”

 

The grand irony of it all is Wall Street is more meritocratic than anywhere else on Earth. Bonuses are paid in relation to the ability to work hard and make money. Some of these commentators are proposing a 100% tax on everything above 1MM or 500K, not too long ago I would have called this lunatic fringe, however this is the Democratic parties stance on things.

 

Banker Hubris. Why is it that so many on this board feel as though they are all real life Horatio Alger stories? Believe it or not I seriously doubt anyone would make it to MIT, Cal Tech, or Harvard, let alone GS, JPM, or Lazard. if they were born in Laos. So believe it or not, bankers do owe something to the rest of the nation. This nation allowed them to reach such success. This nation bailed out AIG, created TARP, and allowed banks to make huge trading profits using effectively free money to buy back US Treasuries. To ignore that is not only disingenuous but just down right ignorant.

 
MP80:
So believe it or not, bankers do owe something to the rest of the nation. This nation allowed them to reach such success.

Why do you think bankers OWE something to others simply because you think they were born into a better situation? This of course assumes that they were in a better situation in the first place-many people defy the odds and achieve success despite lack of resources and connections. But regardless, what you suggest here is basically communism. How about you donate your bonus to the poor Laotian because his standard of living is not comparable to yours?

MP80:
This nation bailed out AIG, created TARP, and allowed banks to make huge trading profits using effectively free money to buy back US Treasuries. To ignore that is not only disingenuous but just down right ignorant.

Completely different issue here and I think many here would say 1) action was needed to avoid a meltdown and 2) although action was needed, it was disgusting to observe and went against everything that free markets stand for.

 
MP80:
Banker Hubris. Why is it that so many on this board feel as though they are all real life Horatio Alger stories? Believe it or not I seriously doubt anyone would make it to MIT, Cal Tech, or Harvard, let alone GS, JPM, or Lazard. if they were born in Laos.
I wasn't born in the US and made it to those universities and firms. I owe nothing to the US government.

Wall Street banks should go back to being partnerships.

 

"This nation bailed out AIG, created TARP, and allowed banks to make huge trading profits using effectively free money to buy back US Treasuries."

All these PROBLEMS were created by the government.... so the solution is to give more money to the government???

 

All I am trying to say is that society has allowed bankers and others in this nation to achieve enormous amounts of wealth. The prosperity of a few would be impossible without the effort of many. The trader in the oil industry wouldn't exist were it not for the roughneck in the Atlantic. Just like the M&A industrials banker wouldn't exist if not for the factory worker at the steel mill. My point about brining up Laos was not to say that we should donate our salaries or bonuses to the impoverished people there but rather to note the distinct differences between both societies. America is a rich and prosperous land and this sentiment of hubris that resonates amongst many bankers is flat out wrong. If you were born in Laos or Equatorial Guinea you would not be successful. I know it is hard for many of you to fathom but you didn't do it all by yourself.

 
MP80:
All I am trying to say is that society has allowed bankers and others in this nation to achieve enormous amounts of wealth. The prosperity of a few would be impossible without the effort of many. The trader in the oil industry wouldn't exist were it not for the roughneck in the Atlantic. Just like the M&A industrials banker wouldn't exist if not for the factory worker at the steel mill. My point about brining up Laos was not to say that we should donate our salaries or bonuses to the impoverished people there but rather to note the distinct differences between both societies. America is a rich and prosperous land and this sentiment of hubris that resonates amongst many bankers is flat out wrong. If you were born in Laos or Equatorial Guinea you would not be successful. I know it is hard for many of you to fathom but you didn't do it all by yourself.

and this justifies a "progressive" tax system/big government how?

 
MP80:
All I am trying to say is that society has allowed bankers and others in this nation to achieve enormous amounts of wealth. The prosperity of a few would be impossible without the effort of many. The trader in the oil industry wouldn't exist were it not for the roughneck in the Atlantic. Just like the M&A industrials banker wouldn't exist if not for the factory worker at the steel mill. My point about brining up Laos was not to say that we should donate our salaries or bonuses to the impoverished people there but rather to note the distinct differences between both societies. America is a rich and prosperous land and this sentiment of hubris that resonates amongst many bankers is flat out wrong. If you were born in Laos or Equatorial Guinea you would not be successful. I know it is hard for many of you to fathom but you didn't do it all by yourself.

By other- prospective, I'm guessing future socialist? The prosperity of the many is caused by the few, the roughneck in the Atlantic has neither the brains nor the capital to found the corporation that extracts the oil. He doesn't have the talent to run it. He is a low-level semiskilled worker making $20 an hour. That $20 comes from the industrialists, men like Ford, Carnegie, Frick and Rockefeller who would ultimately allow for a middle class, they would have been unable to do so without capital, something bankers provided access to.

If I was born endowed with as much intelligence as I had be it in Laos or Equitoral Guinea, I imagine I could succeed people always do. There are billionaires from lots of shitty countries and a lot of immigrants do make it. So STFU.

 
futurectdoc:
MP80:
All I am trying to say is that society has allowed bankers and others in this nation to achieve enormous amounts of wealth. The prosperity of a few would be impossible without the effort of many. The trader in the oil industry wouldn't exist were it not for the roughneck in the Atlantic. Just like the M&A industrials banker wouldn't exist if not for the factory worker at the steel mill. My point about brining up Laos was not to say that we should donate our salaries or bonuses to the impoverished people there but rather to note the distinct differences between both societies. America is a rich and prosperous land and this sentiment of hubris that resonates amongst many bankers is flat out wrong. If you were born in Laos or Equatorial Guinea you would not be successful. I know it is hard for many of you to fathom but you didn't do it all by yourself.

By other- prospective, I'm guessing future socialist? The prosperity of the many is caused by the few, the roughneck in the Atlantic has neither the brains nor the capital to found the corporation that extracts the oil. He doesn't have the talent to run it. He is a low-level semiskilled worker making $20 an hour. That $20 comes from the industrialists, men like Ford, Carnegie, Frick and Rockefeller who would ultimately allow for a middle class, they would have been unable to do so without capital, something bankers provided access to.

If I was born endowed with as much intelligence as I had be it in Laos or Equitoral Guinea, I imagine I could succeed people always do. There are billionaires from lots of shitty countries and a lot of immigrants do make it. So STFU.

Your arrogance is astounding.

 

If I was born endowed with as much intelligence as I had be it in Laos or Equitoral Guinea, I imagine I could succeed people always do. There are billionaires from lots of shitty countries and a lot of immigrants do make it. So STFU.

i can't tell if you are being serious? If you are born into a poor family in Laos without a mother and 9 brothers that you have to take care of there is a 0% chance you will be taking unpaid internships and trying to land an IB gig on wall street. I'm against progressive taxes and a market system is the only way but that has nothing to do with the stupid shit you are writing.

 

Ever since I was young, I really liked the idea that if I made enough money, I would donate some of it. And this was before I was even aware of things like tax breaks. If you're a banker and you feel that you owe the country something, donate some of it, and you'll be giving back to the people.

I love the NYT since I grew up reading it, and I always thought that the opinion page was best when it creates a very divided debate; it's even better when there are more than 2 sides to it. I think it's one of the rare moments when you get an insight into how other people think. Yes, there will be those who just have this one liner that just has nothing to do with the article, but those who flesh out their responses... you judge them by the merits of their argument.

Chances are, if you're posting on Wall Street Oasis, you are more educated about Wall Street than the common person. The typical person walking down the street has no idea how Wall Street really works. I don't even know how it works yet. I'm sure William Cohan wasn't happy with the responses he got because most of the comments are based on the numbers he gave, not the justification behind the numbers.

Ultimately, if someone is better off, other people will attack him/her. It goes with the territory.

--Death, lighter than a feather; duty, heavier than a mountain
 

I dont think everybody would be as pissed if the banks hadn't taken Billions in bailout money. Where was all the BS about success and failure back then? The banks fleeced middle America with TARP and got away with it regardless of how many IQ points they have. Bottom line is that all the big brokers would have been out of business at the height of the crisis if not for the forced graciousness of the average taxpayer, then they took that bailout maoney and squeezed out one more quarter of massive bonuses. "Meritocracy" and "fairness" had nothing to do with it...so I would expect some anger in return.

 

haters gonna hate

simple economics: market price

the buyer of the services performed (banks and their shareholders) and the seller (individuals who work on "wall street") both know the market price of the services performed, and they both agree to the transaction.

no one is forcing anyone to pay anyone more or less, its determined by the market.

Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis - when I was dead broke man I couldn't picture this
 
idragmazda:
haters gonna hate

simple economics: market price

the buyer of the services performed (banks and their shareholders) and the seller (individuals who work on "wall street") both know the market price of the services performed, and they both agree to the transaction.

no one is forcing anyone to pay anyone more or less, its determined by the market.

if it had been determined by the market most of the banks would have been bankrupt and the shareholders would have been wiped out. So it has nothing to do with the market.

 

If u r talking about some regionals like PNC then fine, thats not what I am talking about. Also some of the big deposit-taking banks like JPM would have been fine. But all of the brokers were done...MER, MS, GS, BSC, and LEH all should have been allowed to fail and then I would be able to listen to bankers talking about the free market...since they instead decided to beg for money from big brother I dont want to hear it.

 
Bondarb:
...in fact at the time i flat out told salesman and traders at the other end of the phone that I had no problem with their firms going out of business and that "the market weeds out the weak". They wanted to punch me in the face and probably would have if i wasnt a client. So how come now that they have all been bailed out they are for free markets again?

If it wasn't for government intervention (Freddie and Fannie) no-one would have needed a bail-out in the first place.

 

The issue with being completely free market in this instance is that letting all these banks fail could have been catastrophic. We can look at it in retrospect and say, we would have been fine if we let this fail and this fail and then save this one. But faced with the crisis, the government chose to save many banks-and let ones like Lehman fail, which I think was a response to cries of moral hazard- a legitimate problem.

 

Only thing I find really amusing about this thread and others is the strange assumption that wall-streeters are inherently Republicans. All this "liberal this" and "liberal that" bullshit is hilarious because the street, particularly at the upper levels is full of moderate and middle of the road democrats. WSO is populated by a very strange strand of libertarian extremists that aren't that well represented in what I've seen of BB FO employees.

As you can see by my signature, I'm decidedly a small c economic conservative but the idea that liberals and wall street are fundamentally opposed is silly, if not a little ignorant. One should recognize the world they populate and their place in it.

That said, of course the article in question has some ridiculous NYTish socialist responses but don't equate socialism with liberalism or you risk showing a complete lack of understanding of the narrow strip of the political spectrum the US two-party system occupies.

‎"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns or dollars."
 

Sint nihil error accusamus fuga est et ipsam voluptas. Quasi fuga maxime natus. Nam voluptatum illum impedit deserunt dolor.

Molestias quod minima minima iste totam consequatur. In debitis fugit fugiat dolor voluptas sunt tempora. Nesciunt quia consequatur porro et et aliquid. Soluta autem commodi dolorem rerum.

Numquam at voluptate rerum quisquam voluptatem. Laudantium et distinctio natus blanditiis error. Laudantium repellat vero reiciendis deserunt nihil officia. Explicabo mollitia est occaecati assumenda asperiores dolor cupiditate.

 

Ut quia quasi molestiae qui ullam repellat sed. Voluptatem temporibus aliquam in in eum. Quibusdam ut reprehenderit doloribus voluptatem.

Quis distinctio aperiam totam beatae. Aperiam sint quam numquam exercitationem. Deserunt officiis dolor provident minima quos asperiores.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (85) $262
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (65) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (198) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (143) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
98.9
7
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
8
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
9
pudding's picture
pudding
98.8
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”