To Goldman/MS/JPM Bankers/Traders -- How Much Does Stagnant Stock Price Hurt Your Pay?
I've read that some (all?) of the bankers at public banks receive a portion of their compensation in company stock. Even though Goldman (and to a lesser extent because of exposure to consumer loans, JPM) crushed earnings, their stock goes nowhere... how annoying is this as a banker? Have these stagnant stock prices significantly impacted your overall compensation over the years, since these stocks have significantly underperformed the market?
Someone else can probably provide a better answer but a few observations.
1. Junior banks still receive cash bonuses, it’s usually not until you hit VP that you start getting any stock
2. VPs and MDs typically receive mixed bonuses (cash and stock), so it’s not all bad news
3. A lot of bonuses come in the form of RSUs or options that are already out of the money so the bankers don’t really need the stock to appreciate. What they do need is to stay as there is typically a lock up. This is the real pain point.
4. A lot of financial instructions trade relatively flat because they are dividend paying. Thus stock performance is more based on dividend payout + expected dividend appreciation. This isn’t the case in tech where companies just blast all of their cash flows back into rapid growth and thus see appreciation. Thus the stock price may remain flat but dividend payout may increase which isn’t a bad thing what so ever.
5. Wonder why EBs have gone public? So they can pay senior bankers with stock and provide incentive to retain them.
On point 5. add to allow founders to partially cash out.
This is the main reason - to provide the founders with cash/liquidity
Having a publicly traded stock with a quoted market price also also facilitates founder retirement and succession planning (i.e. transition ownership from the founders to the next generation) a lot more efficiently than a PrivateCo. For example, if Blair Effron and Ken Moelis both wanted to retire and exit the business tomorrow, it would be a lot easier for Ken to pull his money out
Hmm, interesting. You make it sound like it's not that bad, but if your bonus as a VP/MD is 500,000, and half your bonus is in your company stock that goes nowhere... still sounds like it be a six figure difference. I get it that, if the option is already in the money when issued, then even if the stock stays flat you'll stay make money, but still seems to suck.
I mean, using Goldman as example -- over the last 5 years, Goldman stock is up 10 percent TOTAL; not per year, but total over the 5 years, meaning that you'd have made 2 percent annual return on the amount of the bonus you were paid in Goldman stock. If, however, you were able to put that money in let's say Amazon stock (a reasonable investment, as I'm not picking the "hottest" stock over the last 5 years, but a juggernaut of a company that millions of people have invested in), you'd have made 400 percent, or 80 percent a year.
Taking that example a step further, if you put that 250,000 bonus portion into Goldman stock in 2015 (which some Goldman bankers would have been required to do), that 250,000 would have grown to 275,000 today...
If, however, you could have put that 250,000 portion of your bonus into Amazon stock, that 250,000 then would now be worth 1,250,000 today... that's a HUGE difference, a total gamechanger.
So I guess the question is, what percentage of a VP/MD bonus are these bankers required to take in their company stock?
deleted
As high as 2/3 of bonus I've seen
Holy crap, that's kind of a big deal. And you don't have access to it right when it's granted? It vests partially over 3 or 5 years?
This is a good question and like others have mentioned financial institutions award their shareholders in other ways (dividends) as the sector typically trades flat-ish. Some of the banks that are under mandated constraints w/r/t returning cash to shareholders have seen their share price plummet. What you ask is a good question and I am too junior to really have a personal opinion. I have to imagine that the driving factor from the bank's POV is retention among other things.
I cant speak for every bank and senior banker on the Street, but deferred comp is typically anywhere from 25-50%+ of your total all-in compensation, in either deferred cash or stock/RSUs, with a 3-5 year vesting schedule. And the longer you work at that bank, the more deferred comp you accrue over time (some MDs have millions tied up). As you identified, having a volatile (or declining) stock price really sucks because you can lose value when you are eventually paid out!
One benefit (at least at my bank) is that you get dividends on the RSUs awarded as deferred comp. Some senior bankers make an extra $10k+ a month in dividends on their deferred comp
Magni accusamus eligendi sit eligendi est velit. Modi corporis porro quae asperiores qui. Vel tenetur enim voluptate rerum delectus consequuntur. Excepturi repudiandae praesentium consequatur repudiandae ut. Aut ducimus omnis quibusdam excepturi est iusto dolorem eaque. Aliquam magni veniam dolor aut accusantium assumenda. Libero deserunt accusantium eligendi.
Et et nam sunt doloribus dolor. Officia dignissimos ipsam placeat rem ut perspiciatis velit.
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...