Deutsche Bank reduced salaries and bonuses at the investment bank, which also includes sales and trading, by 14 percent to 5.34 billion euros last year from 6.24 billion euros in 2012, the company said. The compensation fell 23 percent in the fourth quarter from a year earlier. “We are keeping an eye on the competition and the pack that we’re competing with for talent,” Jain said. “What we are doing is something the whole industry is doing at varying speeds.” The bank hasn’t lost a “material” number of investment bankers after overhauling its compensation system, which includes staggering annual bonuses over a longer period, he said. [Bloomberg]
Rupert is said (by a newspaper he owns, so maybe they actually know?) to be shelling out a few million for the $Honey. No word on perks. Read more »
Former exotic dancers who were employed at Rick’s Cabaret International Inc. are entitled to be paid a minimum wage, said a U.S. judge who ruled that they were club employees and not independent contractors under the law. Former strippers sued Rick’s Cabaret and its corporate parent RCI Entertainment New York in U.S. District Court in Manhattan in 2009, alleging they weren’t paid any salary in violation of federal and state labor laws. The dancers said they instead received money from customers including “performance fees” for personal dances. Publicly traded Rick’s Cabaret argued that it exercised “minimal control” over the women, whom the company said were independent contractors not covered by labor law. Rick’s Cabaret also filed a countersuit for “unjust enrichment” claiming that the performance fees the dancers earned should be counted against any statutory wage obligation of the defendants. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in New York today rejected the defendants’ bid for summary judgment, or a ruling before trial, concluding that Rick’s Cabaret had “regulated almost every aspect of the dancers’ behavior within the club.” [Bloomberg, Related: Bankers And Traders “Legitimately” Expensing Strip Clubs Do Rick’s Cabaret A Solid]
Here you can read an independent review of how Barclays lost its way and I submit to you that the fundamental problem was grammar:
In 2005, John Varley launched the Group’s five Guiding Principles – ‘customer focus’, ‘winning together’, ‘best people’, ‘pioneering’ and ‘trusted’ – demonstrating intent to oversee the Group through one set of values. (Section 8.14)
Are your five Guiding Principles nouns or adjectives?1 None can say. Even 30 Rock’s six sigmas were more grammatically consistent. If your five guiding principles are clearly just some mismatched words that someone wrote down and never edited, and that no one could actually use in a sentence, then: they’re not guiding anyone.2
And they didn’t. The lack of a shared understanding of values across Barclays spawned this chart, which might be my favorite thing ever:
Swiss bank annual earnings are here so we might as well check in on what they’re up to with comp. You and I may think of comp in pretty straightforward ways – if you did good, and your employer did good, you get paid well, and if not not – but Credit Suisse and UBS take a delightfully arcane wheels-within-wheels approach, constantly changing how they pay employees to send signals, fine-tune incentives, and optimize regulatory capital. I suppose if I worked there I’d be so pleased by the complexity of the edifice that I’d be okay with otherwise disappointing pay. Current employees may disagree.
Anyway we talked about UBS the other day; per the FT they are handing out bonuses in the form of high-trigger CoCo bonds that get written down to zero if UBS’s regulatory capital falls below 7 percent. The bonds “will pay a market-based interest rate” though that’s not saying much; any interest rate is “market-based” in the sense that it can be decomposed into, like, Treasuries plus a number. Presumably the number here is high.