How much did banking, private equity, and hedge fund execs make in 2013?
What do the compensation packages for banking CEOs look like six years after the financial crisis?
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +160 | Americas M&A League Table Q2 Updated | 69 | 3h |
| +132 | New Article: Dramatic Slide as UBS #22 (US) & New Leadership Desperately Needed | 25 | 1d |
| +72 | Restructuring: Anti-climactic Experience | 15 | 2h |
| +67 | A COMPLETE GUIDE TO SUMMER INTERNSHIP RECRUITING | 12 | 11h |
| +50 | Boutique firm wants access to my LinkedIn? | 40 | 11h |
| +46 | IB Net Worth / Savings Check | 20 | 8h |
| +36 | Investment Banking is Hard | 14 | 16h |
| +33 | Investment Banking in Mexico | 9 | 2d |
| +25 | PWP vs BofA | 21 | 6h |
| +21 | Excel macros for QOL formatting | 0 | 5d |
Career Resources
Considering that the whole article was about bonuses post crisis, I think that the numbers should have been included from previous years to be added in as comparison, otherwise, they're just big numbers.
There is a % increase listed for some of the execs indicating an increase in their paycheques.
Kind of feel bad for how little BB execs get paid. You can say they do it for the power/recognition, but not even Jamie is safe in the public's eye. Just don't understand what keeps these guys in those positions.
I'd honestly be interested in hearing a personal answer from Jamie or Lloyd on why they deal with that constant shit when they could easily make 2x or 3x their current numbers with less stress.
The Hedge fund compensation makes me want to cry, it's so beautiful.
The term "compensation" when applied to these buyside moguls is so misleading. Icahn, Soros and Cohen make billions in "compensation" because their wealth constitutes the overwhelming majority of the capital invested. Black, Kravis, etc. receive a great majority of their money from dividends on their stock holdings, not in carried interest or cash compensation. Why magazines call returns on their wealth / stock holdings to be "compensation" is unclear, but my best guess is that they aim for the public outrage generated from the idea of "big paychecks".
Yet we include stock options in all other executive pay. Don't see how this is any different, just a hell of a lot better of a deal. Which is why Lloyd and Jamie are getting f'd in the a.
80% incremental tax on inc over $10mm, amirite?
Yes, this still holds the esteemed title, namely, the dumbest policy proposal I have ever read on WSO.
I mean who are you guys... do you actually make over $10 bucks a year? Do you think you have a greater than 1% chance of ever making this kind of money in a single year (obv inflation adjusted). I don't see what the big opposition is. Most of this country's GDP is created by small and medium sized businesses where even the founders are unlikely to ever clear $10mm a year. Let's bolster these job creators, not the guys at the top of the food chain that "reduce headcount" through scale, in exchange higher dividend payouts...
So... just because YOU will never make 10 mil, that means people who actually work hard should pay you more dividends? Nice try buddy.
Oh please... let's not go down the "work hard" debate. You and I both know that the HF manager doesn't do jack shit actual "work" compared to the Mexican guy I just paid $20 to work my yard for 3 hours. They are smart... I'll give you that. But they don't work particularly hard compared to "rest-of-world" standards.
Wouldn't think someone who works in finance would be completely oblivious to how the real world works, but I guess that's why you work in "Asset Management".
By the way... why the fuck are you paying a guy below minimum wage when you're the one bitching about the "little guy"? You sound like a fucking prick.
Trust me buddy - i've heard all the arguments and free market crap to last me a lifetime. I'm all for incentives for innovation and hard work. I just think it's ludicrous that most of these guys are paying incremental tax rates in the 15-20% ballpark. Most of the developed economies are about to collapse around their own debt loads and yet the rich have never had it better.
I do think i'm in the strong minority in the AM world... certainly wouldn't share my political views at work. But there's always hope - George Soros somehow made it through, as did Warren.
Most likely Schwarzman pays more taxes in one year than what you will contribute to our GDP in your lifetime, so I don't see how you can ask them to do much more for your own benefit.
The idea of "luck" was invented so people like you would give up on making any real contribution to society so that you would have absolutely no influence whatsoever. Sorry your parents raised you a Democrat - I know it must be difficult to see reality.
a little over the top here, don't you think
Yeah i don't disagree. Again, I think most finance professionals contribute very little (if anything) of value to society over the course of their careers. In reality I'll probably contribute a decent amount to GDP, but that's just because its a poorly designed measuring stick. But you're probably right, Schwarzman will still prob pay more in tax.
Anyways, I want to be really clear: I'm not advocating for higher tax rates on incomes in the $100,000 - 9,999,000 ballpark. That probably makes me just as republican as you... not sure what i'm registered as at the moment, but in past presidential elections i've voted green, democrat and republican (most recently).
I'm sorry, @"jankynoname", but your policy suggestion here is just utterly moronic. I usually wouldn't be so harsh, but in this case it's just utterly senseless. I trust that you are an intelligent guy, so I'll just chalk this up to you not having put much thought to the implications of your proposed policy, viz., taxing all income over $10mm at a 80% marginal rate.
If all capital appreciation over $10mm were subject to such a confiscatory tax, no one would ever recognize large capital gains. Successful entrepreneurs would never liquidate their holdings, active investing (HF, PE, VC, etc.) on behalf of wealthy individuals would grind to a halt, wealth would quickly move abroad to tax havens where capital could be invested without such burdensome taxation. The pace of capital turnover, entrepreneurship, etc. would take an enormous hit.
There is absolutely no argument that can justify the amount of economic harm imposed by such a policy. You will, in one fell swoop, terminate an enormous chunk of capital investment for those Americans who possess the greatest investment capacity. Investment is the only source of value creation in an economy; by disenfranchising our most capable investors, we are sure to feel great pain.
I think you're vastly overestimating the number of folks who make over 10 mil. In reality, there's going to be plenty of people (including ultra high net worth individuals) who will happily invest in U.S. markets and ensure their liquidity and proper functioning. The good billionaires are all planning to give the vast majority of their wealth to charity anyhow (see Gates, Buffett, etc) so this would not effect their capital allocation. For those without the charitable instinct, yes, they probably need to invest elsewhere...
I just don't see my plan as that "utterly moronic". Certainly not more moronic than running trillion $ deficits every year into perpetuity.
Also, who is it that isn't sufficiently incentivized by $10 million a year? If that's not enough to get smart people off the couch then i think they need their heads examined. We're not talking about having $10mm in net worth, we're talking about putting a governor on your net worth growing by more than $10mm each year. I'd work pretty hard for that...
Look, I know you mean well, but you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Your policy is misguided, would be economically disastrous and is altogether poorly conceived. As I've said, I'm not often dismissive, but this suggestion is so foolish, it's dumbfounding to me that you actually support it.
How ironic, indeed, that you would mention Gates and Buffett, both of whom have build nearly their entire net worth on a single entrepreneurial venture. In your ludicrous dystopia, Bill Gates (currently worth $76bn) would actually be worth $15bn, Warren Buffett (currently worth $62bn) would actually be worth $12bn. Investing in the U.S. would be simply out-of-the-question for any of the Forbes 400; after blowing through the 80% confiscation threshold, there is simply no project that will match a standard global rate of return on capital.
You are deluding yourself, "This would not affect their capital allocation"... that is patently absurd!!
Per the IRS, the top 400 individuals alone constituted 16% of the total capital gains realized in 2009 (latest data available). In the available tables published, the average tax year shows ~41% of total capital gains going to individuals with AGIs >$5mm (i.e. likely to be subject to your tax after including capital gains, interest, dividends, etc.), ~32% to individuals with AGIs >$10mm.
This has nothing to do with "liquidity" or "proper functioning of markets". HNIs will elect not to hold wealth in the US, where it will be subject to confiscatory taxes.
Further solidifying your lack of consideration. A tax on capital gains is levied at realization. In your world, a man who started a business, grew it for a period of 10 years and exited at a $100mm valuation would take home ~$23mm even if he somehow managed to hold 100% equity. There's just no way he would continue such an exercise after he had managed to build the business to $10mm; for him, it would be a waste of time. It's not $10mm per year, it's $10mm per distribution; whether you worked your whole life to build that $10mm gain or earned it in a single tax year.
This proposed tax, especially considering the enormous economic damage it would surely cause (reduced investment, slowed capital turnover, etc.), would represent but pebbles in the ocean in deficit reduction. Dream on.
Lol gdp is total income by definition so any money you make necessarily increases gdp. You don't even understand basic economics. I say this because you said "probably contribute a decent amount," which implies you think gdp has something to do with a vague concept of "value" or something of that nature. It simply means the cash you made. If you made any money, you contributed to gdp.
Additionally, in the long run you wouldn't get paid unless you created value (why else would someone part with their money?). That's assuming you're not living off rent seeking and/or government subsidies. I find it hard to believe that an entire industry (you said "most finance professionals") exists only due to rent seeking.
oh no! monkey shit!
Now make me a sammich.
Assumenda quis cumque voluptatem accusamus architecto. Est maiores animi perferendis ut error quia est.
Autem debitis aut aliquid porro. Harum minima odit similique quas et asperiores. Eos molestiae quos quis deserunt. Omnis et quo enim error amet doloribus deleniti.
Officiis aut sit dolore soluta qui quo sint. Voluptatum aut itaque libero laudantium voluptatem id ducimus minima. Dolor vero voluptas ipsam. Repellendus sapiente et laudantium sunt. Delectus maxime quis accusamus earum consectetur ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Debitis ea aperiam quia fuga debitis molestiae placeat. Fugiat quidem sit sapiente dignissimos qui et magnam. Atque dolor in minima labore eaque doloribus. Ut assumenda libero qui ducimus. Voluptatem magnam culpa nostrum omnis iusto eum harum. Consectetur pariatur dolorum iure ratione voluptate.