• 28 Feb 2013 at 12:15 PM
  • Banks

Bonus Watch ’14: EU Banks Will Be Mildly Inconvenienced

OH GOSH LET’S GET REAL ANGRY ABOUT THE EU BONUS CAP, which is moving forward and would limit bankers’ bonuses to 1x base salary, or 2x with shareholder approval. It is super dumb.1 England hates it, what with having a functioning banking industry and all. Bankers hate it, being bankers.2 This guy thinks it makes total sense, being a Belgian lawmaker for the Green Party:

“If I have to judge from the reaction of the [banking] industry, this will impact them. And this will also impact the overall amount of remuneration,” said Philippe Lamberts, a Belgian lawmaker for the Green Party who was one of the leading negotiators for Parliament. “I think it will really hit them.”

Feel free to vent in the comments, you’ve earned it. But this Lex column strikes me as the only worthwhile thing to say about it:

Dear Star Banker, …

Your fixed, cash salary has been increased from €500,000 to €10m per year, roughly in line with your average total compensation for the past five years, to be paid monthly into an escrow account we will open on your behalf. By signing this contract you agree that from this escrow account a monthly net payment equivalent of €500k per year will be paid into your personal current account.

At year-end, you are entitled to the full balance of your cash salary remaining in the escrow account subject to strict clawback provisions detailed in this contract. In summary, if 100 per cent of your various targets are achieved you receive €9.5m, on a sliding scale to zero … In addition, and based on the same formula and criteria as above, you will be entitled to a bonus worth at least 50 per cent of your post-clawback salary.

Get it? No? Consider another line of work.

I kind of mean that. The future of banking, not totally unlike the recent past of banking, would seem to involve a healthy dose of regulatory-arbitrage creativity, so if you’re not comfortable with that you may not even earn your 1x bonus. This guy puts it a little more blandly than Lex did, but if you listen closely you can hear the excitement in his voice because he’s going to make a lot of money off of this:

“If the cap is implemented, it could result in significantly more complex pay structures within banks as they try to fall outside the restrictions to remain competitive globally,” said Alex Beidas, a pay specialist with the law firm Linklaters.

I assume that “more complex pay structures” encompasses escrowed-and-clawbacked base pay,3 for one thing. Or related things like paying your base in the form of one-year structured securities linked to the performance of your desk. [Update: In this vein, John Carney suggests that banks “form a special purpose vehicle to which you sell the rights to half of the future profits from a trading desk” and pay base salary in part in SPV shares.] Or maybe fair-value tinkering: if you get a base of €500K, your bonus can be €500K of value, but if it’s €500K of creepy derivative exposure then maybe it can end up being worth a lot more than that. Or perhaps corporate structuring approaches: the rules appear to apply to EU bank employees worldwide and worldwide bank employees in the EU, potentially leaving open the door for structural tinkering for EU banks’ employees abroad. Or lots of other things, which are left as exercises for the reader, or for Alex Beidas, who I suspect is beavering away on them. [Update: Also there is this.]

Bloomberg has a very nice article today about a Citi/Blackstone regulatory capital trade, in which Blackstone writes CDS on a first-loss tranche of a $1.2bn pool of Citi shipping loans, and Citi gets to dramatically decrease the risk-weighted assets, and thus the capital requirements, relating to those loans. If you just imagine that the whole loans have a 100% risk-weighting (I have no idea) and that Citi’s capital requirements are 10% (for simplicity), then pre-trade Citi had $1.2bn of notional exposure, $1.2bn of RWAs and needed to have $120mm of equity capital to support them. After selling, say, the 0-to-15% tranche via a synthetic securitization, Citi still has $1.2bn of loans on its books, though it’s reduced its notional exposure to $1,020mm (the last $1,020mm). But because that exposure is now very credit-enhanced, it is much safer and higher-rated (on internal models at least), and so Citi can reduce its capital requirements (and RWAs) by “as much as 96 percent.” So it now those loans represent only like $50mm of RWAs, and require just $5mm of capital.

It’s like Credit Suisse’s PAF2 trade, only instead of shifting the risk to Blackstone and then back to itself via magic, Citi is shifting the risk to Blackstone and leaving it there. Progress!

Still, one fairly obvious thing to ponder is, how is Blackstone capitalizing the vehicle that is writing the $180mm notional CDS? Not, I will guess, with $115mm of equity capital (the amount that Citi is saving). Why would Blackstone rent its equity capital to Citi, and why would Citi want to do that? Why would Blackstone’s equity capital, plus a fee, be cheaper than Citi’s?4

The answer is that Blackstone is not a bank, is not subject to Basel III regulation, and can make its own judgments about how risky those loans are and how much equity it needs to support them. And presumably it came to a lower number than Basel did. And so the trade was made. And so there are $1.2bn of loans that, if Citi held them, would be supported by $120mm of equity capital, but that are instead supported by less than that. And so the banking system is safer, but only sort of.5

I submit to you that this story contains a lesson for Philippe Lamberts. Specific, detailed rules with hard numerical thresholds designed to make banking look more like what politicians want it to look like – might make banks look more like what politicians want them to look like? But they’re much less likely to make the banking system considered broadly look like what politicians want it to look like. They just provide lucrative work for non-bank sources of capital relief, and for pay specialists with law firms. Making the banking system look like what bankers want it to look like, it turns out, pays better.

Bonus caps: letter to star banker [FT Lex]
EU clinches deal to cap bankers’ bonuses [Reuters]
EU Reaches Deal to Curb Bank Bonuses [WSJ]
Bankers Decry EU Bonus Rules [WSJ]
UK to fight EU plan to cap bankers’ bonuses [Guardian]
Blackstone Profits From Regulation With Citigroup Deal [Bloomberg]

1. I mean, I’ve made vague contrarian sympathetic noises. Upside comp convexity don’tcha know. But basically it’s dumb.

2. Though not all of them. From Reuters:

“It’s anti-capitalist,” said Colin Ellis, who works in the technology division of a bank. “If you have a grocer and he sells loads of fruit, he gets to keep it (the money). When a guy on a trading desk makes loads of money, he deserves to have it.”

Some disagreed. “There is a huge disparity between what senior managers and junior members get and I don’t see anything wrong with a cap,” said Jose, a 25-year-old who works for a bank but declined to give his second name.

You could write a dissertation on the sociology of the banking industry based on just those two astonishingly perfect quotes.

3. Incidentally I find totally unimpressive arguments that “it would be harder for banks to raise base pay this time around because of the higher capital standards that increase their costs and limit how much of their revenue they can pay out to staff.” Perhaps if there is an aggregate cap on pay that would reduce pay overall, but that would do nothing to deter the raising-base-and-escrowing-it approach, or the raising-base-and-not-escrowing-it approach for that matter. Remember that banks accrue comp throughout the year based not just on the base salaries they’re paying in cash, but also for bonus accruals (and that those bonus accruals can sometimes get ahead of themselves). Changing the contractual terms of what you call those accruals wouldn’t change the accounting, or the cash flows, or anything economic.

4. Don’t answer that. There’s some chance I’m just wrong and Citi really is renting cheaper capital, which has its own issues.

5. There is a variant where Blackstone fully capitalizes the vehicle with equity but Citi’s fee payments equal or exceed the amount of protection it’s buying, with Citi effectively just writing off the first 10% because a 90% senior tranche requires so much less capital than the 100% whole loan that it’s worth it. The last two sentences remain just as true in this version: the system as a whole has less capital.

22 comments (hidden to protect delicate sensibilities)
Show all comments ↓

Comments (22)

  1. Posted by Deleveraging | February 28, 2013 at 12:35 PM

    Philippe Lamberts, a Belgian lawmaker for the Green Party who was one of the leading negotiators for Parliament.

    Seriously, do believe Belgium is a real country? The Waloons/Nazi Collaborators and Flemish hate each other. It took those clowns almost 4 years to form their current government. They're about as likely to pass this as our government is about to pass a balances budget.

  2. Posted by PermaGuestII | February 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM

    "Mr. [PermaGuest Sr.], your monetary bonus for 1979 will be $[x]. In addition, you must let us know whether you would prefer a Jaguar, a BMW or a Mercedes; your secretary will give you the petrol charge card. As usual, we've reopened the credit line at Huntsman, so remember do stop in Savile Row when you're in London next month."

    -my old man's year-end conversation with his British employers under the previous European attempt to limit compensation.

  3. Posted by t-paint | February 28, 2013 at 1:09 PM

    It was an injustice when this the guy came second in American Idol 8th…. a real disgrace.

    Cluelss Foreign

  4. Posted by Mexi_Cant | February 28, 2013 at 1:11 PM

    The authors of this bill must be UBS shareholders as they are really helping their competitiveness

  5. Posted by Foghorn Leghorn | February 28, 2013 at 1:14 PM

    UBS will never be competative and I make more money than you.

    J. Dimon

  6. Posted by too small to ball | February 28, 2013 at 1:17 PM

    Don't shaz me bro

  7. Posted by ih8poorppl | February 28, 2013 at 1:18 PM

    Thanks, daddy's little girl, for reminding us.

  8. Posted by PermaFan | February 28, 2013 at 1:27 PM

    "Mr. [ UBS MD Sr.], your monetary bonus for 1979 will be $[x]. In addition, you must let us know whether you would prefer a Volkswagen, a Datsun or a used Ford Capri that smells of rotting cheese; if there are still any analysts on your desk they will give you a five gallon can and a pump, please no siphoning from fellow employees cars in the garage. As usual, we've reopened the credit line at Primark, so, i guess that's something.

    -My image of how this went for UBS MD's dad during said time

  9. Posted by Guest | February 28, 2013 at 1:33 PM

    And history repeats…

    Mr [UBS MD Jr], your monetary bonus for 2012 will match the nominal amount paid to a person with the same title in 1979….yada yada…

  10. Posted by Uncle Carl | February 28, 2013 at 1:45 PM

    Look at the bright side, if implemented, the ban will likely coincide with a huge liquidation sale at JCP.

  11. Posted by Hobbes | February 28, 2013 at 3:04 PM

    In my mind, I like to picture bankers as a bunch of outlaws in the Wild West running rings around the sheriff aka regulators.

  12. Posted by ih8poorppl | February 28, 2013 at 4:33 PM

    How many times you gonna bring this up PermaBrat? Suck it you pole riders

  13. Posted by Stu Pedd-Law | February 28, 2013 at 4:42 PM

    I wonder if the State of California should enact some kind of salary cap on Actors and Directors after Andrew Stanton almost bankrupted Disney and wrecked Hollywood with the lame "John Carter". Big bonuses and pay packages obviously encourages reckless film-making something that impacts ordinary hardworking movie-goers and couch-potatoes throughout the country.

  14. Posted by Mrs_Slocombe | February 28, 2013 at 7:33 PM

    Agreed, somewhere there are a handful of bankers in London plotting to knock that fuckin’ grin off his face.

    Sir "Jimmy" Goldsmith

  15. Posted by guestest | February 28, 2013 at 7:49 PM

    Brash financing
    less: (monetary incentives to above)
    = Bankers start a union, work 3 hrs per day, take fridays and weekends off.

  16. Posted by Sorry | February 28, 2013 at 7:50 PM

    Or maybe with the talent drain to hedge funds and regulatory capital requirements the remaining traders will be happy to earn 2-3x for taking commissions moving pieces of paper back and forth.

  17. Posted by lucas | February 28, 2013 at 7:59 PM

    They are united in their hatred for hard work and free enterprise.

  18. Posted by Dead_cat | March 1, 2013 at 8:03 AM

    4 glorious years of no political interference… heaven!

  19. Posted by Dead_cat | March 1, 2013 at 8:11 AM

    Looks like it's time for London to declare independence.

    All hail King Boris!

  20. Posted by Guest | March 2, 2013 at 6:57 AM

    Matt, two thoughts on the Lex letter:
    1. Reclassifying conditional compensation as salary will impact contributions (payroll tax, social security, etc.). An attempt to clawback salary would need to ensure these contributions, which be in aggregate a significant expense for bank and employee, are equally reduced. Tax authorities would be interested in challenging any "clever" avoidance scheme.
    2. Generally authorities, as for tax avoidance, would challenge compensation schemes that cannot be defended as having a legitimate purpose other than fraudulently avoiding regulation.

  21. Posted by Ban KKiller | March 12, 2013 at 10:56 PM

    For bonus pay bankers need a swift kick to the nuts. Twice.

  22. Posted by العاب تلبيس بنات | July 15, 2013 at 8:55 AM

    العاب تلبيس بنات http://www.girls-gamess.com/