It’s finally occurred. As I just read on Clusterstock, there is officially some sort of rationality creeping into Wall St. payment structures. Claw-backs are here, as I suggested previously (I was hardly alone).
Now, I wonder what the real impetus behind this sort of decision really is. Is it public officials railing against bonuses? Traders who were paid millions to put on the positions that are now sinking their (former) employers? Or, perhaps it’s the fact the C.E.O.s and executives who are used to taking no risk whatsoever, as Felix also intuits, and are used to being compensated in the ponzi scheme that has the slogan, “in line with our peers.” This sort of groupthink, parading as transparency (that only pertains to rising compensation, obviously) has been championed by familiar names. But, other familiar names have been railing against exactly this sort of thing (yes, all of those links are to distinct posts on the Icahn Report …).
I wonder if some of those executives are angry at having to give up theirs and not being able to inflict the same on their minions… Not totally unjustifiable, after all it wasn’t John Mack who personally took the positions that have caused writedowns at his firm, just like it wasn’t Vikram at Citi (C). Still, when the kings get stung you know the subjects will feel it.
This relates to some other topics on anti-competitive behavior, but I’ll leave those for the time being.